Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.72 seconds)Hind Lamps Limited vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 16 December, 1976
7. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The point to be determined is whether M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is a related person of the appellant. In order to be a related person there must be a mutuality of interest between these two companies. It must also be shown that the appellant's company has an interest directly or indirectly in the business of M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. These are principles laid down in the decision reported in 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 1) in the case of Hind Lamps Limited v. UOI which is relied on by the appellants.
International Computers Indian ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 November, 1984
8. The appellants have also relied on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 287 in the case of International Computer India Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. In that particular decision at para 23 the Tribunal after referring to several other decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, held as under :
M/S. Mittal Engineering Works(P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise,Meerut on 19 November, 1996
It is thus seen that in order to term M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. as the related person it must be shown that there is a mutuality of interest between these two firms and there is financial flow back, and that the appellant has an interest in the business of the other firm. There are no such materials brought out in this case except for the fact that in both the firms Shri O. Padmanabhan as well as Shri T.J. Subhash has got major shares. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant is a related person. The decisions relied on by the learned SDR in the cases reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 102 in the case of Supreme Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 699 in the case of Sundri Surti Stores v. Collector of Central Excise and 1988 (34) E.L.T. 239 in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise are not applicable to the facts of this case. Those decisions were decided with respect to the clubbing of the clearances of the two firms and in those cases there were evidences of financial flow back between the concerned firms as well as several other factors were available. Therefore the most important factor of financial flow back is absent in this case. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the mere fact of Shri O. Padmanabhan and Shri T.J. Subhash having got major shares in both the firms by itself is not sufficient to hold M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is related person of the appellant. Accordingly we hold that this finding arrived at by the learned lower authorities are not in accordance with law and we set aside the same.
Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 January, 1988
It is thus seen that in order to term M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. as the related person it must be shown that there is a mutuality of interest between these two firms and there is financial flow back, and that the appellant has an interest in the business of the other firm. There are no such materials brought out in this case except for the fact that in both the firms Shri O. Padmanabhan as well as Shri T.J. Subhash has got major shares. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant is a related person. The decisions relied on by the learned SDR in the cases reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 102 in the case of Supreme Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 699 in the case of Sundri Surti Stores v. Collector of Central Excise and 1988 (34) E.L.T. 239 in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise are not applicable to the facts of this case. Those decisions were decided with respect to the clubbing of the clearances of the two firms and in those cases there were evidences of financial flow back between the concerned firms as well as several other factors were available. Therefore the most important factor of financial flow back is absent in this case. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the mere fact of Shri O. Padmanabhan and Shri T.J. Subhash having got major shares in both the firms by itself is not sufficient to hold M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is related person of the appellant. Accordingly we hold that this finding arrived at by the learned lower authorities are not in accordance with law and we set aside the same.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Sundari Surti Stores vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 January, 1988
It is thus seen that in order to term M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. as the related person it must be shown that there is a mutuality of interest between these two firms and there is financial flow back, and that the appellant has an interest in the business of the other firm. There are no such materials brought out in this case except for the fact that in both the firms Shri O. Padmanabhan as well as Shri T.J. Subhash has got major shares. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant is a related person. The decisions relied on by the learned SDR in the cases reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 102 in the case of Supreme Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 699 in the case of Sundri Surti Stores v. Collector of Central Excise and 1988 (34) E.L.T. 239 in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise are not applicable to the facts of this case. Those decisions were decided with respect to the clubbing of the clearances of the two firms and in those cases there were evidences of financial flow back between the concerned firms as well as several other factors were available. Therefore the most important factor of financial flow back is absent in this case. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the mere fact of Shri O. Padmanabhan and Shri T.J. Subhash having got major shares in both the firms by itself is not sufficient to hold M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is related person of the appellant. Accordingly we hold that this finding arrived at by the learned lower authorities are not in accordance with law and we set aside the same.
Medley Labs P. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 October, 1996
9. Reliance was further placed on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 in the case of Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. In that particular case in para 6 at page 159 the Tribunal held as follows:
1