TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal. Apparently, no such scrutiny was done. Appeal dismissed - the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad must be upheld - 2858 of 1977 - - - Dated:- 2-5-1989 - Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.]. - This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 16th December, 1976. 2. The question in this case was the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent-company had submitted its price list in Form IV to the Superintendent, Central Excise containing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. Ltd. 3. On the lamps manufactured by the respondent-company, it put the brand names or trade marks like Philips, Osram, Mazda, Crompton and Bajaj of the respective customer companies according to their directions. The customer companies in turn sold these lamps under their names at prices higher than the prices charged by the respondent-company. Excise duty on electric lamps and flourescent lamps was levied for the first time in the year 1965. At first, excise duty on lamps was a specific duty. Later, excise duty on them was changed from specific to ad valorem duty. After such change, there was a controversy between the respondent-company and the central excise authorities as to whether the prices charged by the respondent-company to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Ltd. 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) = [1984] 1 SCR 347, where this Court observed that it was not the intention of the Parliament while enacting the new section to create a scheme materially different from that embodied in the superseded section 4. The object and purpose remained the same, and so did the central principle of the scheme. The new scheme was merely more comprehensive and the language employed more precise and definite. As in the old section 4, the terms in which the value was defined remained the price charged by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal. See the observations at pages 377 and 378 of the said Report. The High Court referred to the decision of this Court in A.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust also be held to have interest indirectly, if not directly, in the business of the respondent-company. The High Court found that in the absence of material, it was not possible to accede to the contention of the ............ What is "interest, directly or indirectly", has been explained in Union of India Ors. v. Atic Industries Ltd. (supra). In that case, the respondent-assessee, a limited company, was engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes. Its 50 per cent share capital was held by Atul Products Ltd. and the remaining 50 per cent by Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., London which also had a subsidiary company fully owned by it, called Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation of the definition of "related person" in subsection (4) (c) of Section 4, the words "relative and a distributor of the assessee" do not refer to any distributor but these were limited only to a distributor who is a relative of the assessee within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It was held that the definition of "related person" is not unduly wide and does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. 6. Reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court in Union of India Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). The first part of the definition defined "related person" to mean a person who is so associated with the assessee that each has interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal basis and to a share holding company and to another company, which was initially a subsidiary of the foreign share holding company and to which subsequently became "associate" company of the foreign shareholding company. In the instant case also, it was on principal to principal basis and to a shareholding company (Bajaj Electricals Ltd.) and so called to associate companies of the foreign shareholding companies. Goods were supplied to customers in their brand name in the case of Atic Industries as in the instant case. In Atic Industries' case, there was no allegation of extra commercial consideration and in the instant case also there was no allegation of extra commercial consideration. In Atic Industries' case, same prices were char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
