Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors on 25 October, 1966
7.1.1?While a company is a legal person entirely distinct from its shareholders, in terms of Apex Courts Judgment in case of Income Tax Commissioner, Madras v. Meenakshi Mills, Madurai, reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 819, in certain exceptional cases, the court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade and that the court has powers to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent the tax obligation. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in cases of :-
Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 31 March, 1998
(a) Calcutta Chromotype v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.) = (1998) 3, SCC-681;
S.S. Poly Printers And Jindal Packaging vs Cce on 18 November, 2003
iv) Poly Printers v. C.C.E. 2002 (139) ELT (Tri-Del.)
C.C.E., Jaipur vs M/S. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. on 11 May, 2001
On this point, the Apex Court in case of CCE, Delhi v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 155 (S.C.), has held that when on lifting the corporate veil it is found that only one person/company has extraordinary interest and pervasive control over the financial matters and management of other companies, irrespective of the latter having separate sales tax, income tax and central excise registration, their clearances have to be clubbed for determining their eligibility for the SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. In this regard, Para 87 of the judgment is reproduced below :-
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction Company(P) Ltd. & ... on 6 May, 1996
(c) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipp Construction Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC-622.
Muthusavarri Pillai Paper Products And ... vs Cce on 3 March, 2004
In the case of Muthusavaari Pillai Paper Products (Supra), A.C. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited (Supra), Superior Products (supra), KAA Arunachalam and Shakti Engg.works (Supra) there was separate machinery, labor and electricity connection. In the instant case there despite existence of some separate machinery the common machinery is being used. Some machinery like chilling plant, packing and electric plant are common. Moreover there was no allegation of free flow of raw material/ intermediates /finished goods from one premises to another. These decisions are therefore distinguishable.
M/S Devi Engineering Syndicate vs Cce, C & St, Visakhapatnam-I on 6 October, 2016
In the case of Muthusavaari Pillai Paper Products (Supra), A.C. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited (Supra), Superior Products (supra), KAA Arunachalam and Shakti Engg.works (Supra) there was separate machinery, labor and electricity connection. In the instant case there despite existence of some separate machinery the common machinery is being used. Some machinery like chilling plant, packing and electric plant are common. Moreover there was no allegation of free flow of raw material/ intermediates /finished goods from one premises to another. These decisions are therefore distinguishable.
Nagel Special Machines Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 November, 2014
vii) Special Machines v. C.C.E. 2004 (169) ELT 215 (Tri-Del.)