Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Union Of India And Others vs Atic Industries Limited on 22 June, 1984
6. Both sides relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Atic Industries Limited [17 E.L.T. 323]. Briefly put, the assessee in that case was a limited company that manufactured dyes. Its share capital was held by two companies. The assessee had sold its dyes to the two companies. The question was whether it could be said that the sales had been made to "related persons". In this regard, this Court said:
Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 31 March, 1998
8. At this stage of the judgment, learned counsel for the revenue draws our attention to the judgment, of a bench of two learned judges of this Court, in Calcutta Chromotype Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta . It does not appear to us that the judgment carries the case of the revenue any further, nor does learned counsel so suggest. He says that he has referred to it because of this sentence therein: "The principle that a company under the Companies Act, 1956 is a separate entity and, therefore where the manufacturer and the buyer are two separate companies, they cannot be anything more than 'related persons' within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act is not the universal application." We have difficulty, for the reasons already stated, in accepting this as correct sentence. It appears to have been so stated in relation to and in the context of facts of that case. Therefore, the learned judges, it should be added, remanded the matter for further inquiry into the facts.
Section 4 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1