Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (12) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the case are that the appellants M/s. Vazir Sultan Tabacoo Industries Limited (for short M/s. VST) are holding Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of cigarettes falling under Tariff Item 4-II (2). They are also manufacturing shells and slides which are utilised for the packing of their brands of cigarettes. These shells manufactured by them were being assessed provisionally under TI 68 as per the interim directions of the Delhi High Court. However, with effect from 3-2-1982, the appellants M/s. VST stopped the manufacture of slides in their own premises and have been getting these slides manufactured on their behalf from the other appellant M/s. Samanto Laminates Private Limited, Moula Ali besides a few other units. This fact a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... behalf in terms of Notification No. 305/77, dated 5-11-1977. In the same Show Cause Notice the other appellants M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. were also asked to show cause why they should not be called upon to take out a licence under T.I. 17 (3) and to file a classification list accordingly and also to file price list under Part VII adding the profit margin of M/s. VST. They were also asked to show cause as to why the exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 77/83 as amended be not denied on the slides. 3. The issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the appellants M/s. VST Industries Ltd. are required to take out a licence under Notification No. 305/77 and (ii) whether the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 and ea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T are on a principal-to principal basis in the ordinary course of business and at arm s length and they are, therefore, manufacturers within their own right. The mere fact that the raw [material] for the manufacture of slides was supplied to the appellants by M/s. VST Industries cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellants M/s. SLPL [are] not the manufacturer of the slides. In this premises, he submitted that he cannot be concluded that appellants M/s. SLPL [are] manufacturing the slides on account or on behalf of M/s. VST , and thus the provisions of Notification No. 305/77, dated 5-11-1977 have no application to the slides manufactured by the appellants and supplied to M/s. VST. 5. Arguing on behalf of the appellants M/s. VST, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e latter and, therefore, M/s. VST are directed to either to take out a licence under TI-68 in the premises of M/s. SLPL or authorise the latter to follow all Central Excise formalities as per Notiication No. 305/77 and as the slides were manufactured and cleared on behalf of M/s. VST and as they (M/s. VST) were not eligible for any small-scale exemption, duty has to be discharged right from the beginning and consequently M/s. SLPL should also file price list in respect of such slides giving assessable values based on cost construction and adding the profit margin of M/s. VST and further that M/s. VST should pay the duty in respect of slides cleared from the factory of M/s. SLPL for the period from July, 1982 to December, 1984. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Accordingly, certain spare machines on hire and under written arrangement were given by M/s. VST to the appellants without putting any restriction as regards the use of the machinery. The appellants M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. obtained a licence for the manufacture of slides under the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and employed their own staff and labour, having their own separate premises, power and water supply and the risk of the business remained clearly with them. There is no finding by the authorities below that M/s. SLPL and M/s. VST were not on a principal-to-principal basis in the ordinary course of business and at arm s length. Applying the ratio of the case of Super Printers v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, supr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates