Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.80 seconds)
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983 cites

A. K. Roy & Anr vs Voltas Limited on 1 December, 1972

Explanation :- In this clause 'holding company', 'subsidiary company' and 'relative' have the same meanings as in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." Learned counsel for the assessees contends that the provisions regarding related persons are wholly unnecessary because to counter-act evasion or avoidance any artificially arranged price between the manufacturer and his wholesale buyer can be rejected in any case under s. 4, and we are referred to the observations of this Court in Voltas Limited (supra) and Atic Industries Ltd. (supra). It is true, we think, that the new s. 4 (1) contains inherently within it the power to determine the true value of the excisable article, after taking into account any concession shown to a special or favoured buyer because of extra-commercial considerations, in order that the price be ascertained only on the basis that it is a transaction at arms length. That requirement is emphasised by the provision in the new s. 4 (1) (a) that the price should be the sole consideration for the sale. In every 386 such case, it will be for the Revenue to determine on the evidence before it whether the transaction is one where extra-commercial considerations have entered and, if so, what should be the price to be taken as the value of the excisable article for the purpose of excise duty. Nonetheless, it was open to Parliament to incorporate provisions in the section declaring that certain specified categories of transactions fall within the tainted class, in which case an irrebuttable presumption will arise that transactions belonging to those categories are transactions which cannot be dealt with under the usual meaning of the expression "normal price" set forth in the new s. 4 (1) (a). They are cases where it will not be necessary for the Revenue to examine the entire gamut of evidence in order to determine whether the transaction is one prompted by extra- commercial considerations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 200 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Ford Motor Company Of India Limited vs The Secretary Of State For India on 4 October, 1935

(a) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, was construed to mean "that price current for staple articles. the amount of which, if not a subject of daily publication in the press, is easily ascertainable in appropriate trade circles". But this general observation can be of no help to the assessees, because since then, he courts have proceeded to make the position amply clear. The problem presented itself again to the Privy Council in Ford Motor Co. of India Ltd. (supra), and while taking note of what it had said in the earlier case, the Privy Council laid down that where the excisable goods constituted a class of their own and it was not possible to say that other manufacturers produced goods of that kind and quality, the goods under assessment could be considered as members of their own class for the purpose of s.30 (a) even although at the time and place of importation there were no other members. The price obtained for them, it was said, would correctly represent the price obtainable for goods of the like kind and quality at the time and place of importation.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next