Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.17 seconds)Pilky Footwear Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
In Pilky Footwear Co. (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1980 (6) E.L.T. 338], the Bombay High Court on facts of the case held that the assessee is an agent of Bata Shoe Company. In our view, this judgment is irrelevant to the facts of the present case.
Standard Electric Appliances vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And ... on 15 March, 1978
25. The Madras High Court in Standard Electric Appliances v. Superintendent (supra) held that the appellants were not "related person" of M/s. Philips (India) to whom they were selling 90% of the goods at a lower price than the price at which they were selling to retailers and where Philips were undertaking advertisement and commissioning of the manufactured goods. From the above, it follows that the fact that the manufacturer sells the entire production to the marketing distributor is not a relevant criteria for determining whether the manufacturer is a "related person" of distributor, provided the sale is at arm's length and the price is not influenced by extra-commercial considerations, as it does not establish mutuality of interest between the manufacturer and the distributor. Similarly, the fact that the distributor is prevented from undertaking the marketing of competitor's goods is also not the criteria for establishing mutuality of interest between the manufacturer and the distributor. The fact that the marketing assessment is the responsibility of the organization is not relevant in determining whether there is a mutuality of interest between the manufacturer and the distributor.
Escorts Tractors Ltd. vs Union Of India on 17 January, 1990
He also referred to and relied upon similar other decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Straw Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. -1987 (30) E.L.T. 275 (Delhi) and in the same Volume at page 281 in the case of Ashok Leyland Limited v. Government of India and Ors. as well as the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Escorts Tractors Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 18 (Del.) wherein the same argument, based on actual and marketing arrangement, had been taken up by the department considering the parties as related persons, but is not found accepted by the High Court.
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 December, 1980
"So far as the first question is concerned it appears to us that the answer is obviously and patently in the negative. There is no material on record to indicate that Usha and the Petitioner are so associated with each other that they can be said to have an interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other. We shall refer later on to the terms of the arrangement between the petitioner and Usha while discussing the second aspect referred to above. It will be seen therefrom that primarily the arrangement between the parties is that Usha should purchase a substantial part of the petitioner's production and sell the goods at a price not higher than the maximum price stipulated by the petitioner. Assuming that the term of the agreement create an interest in Usha vis-a-vis the business of the petitioner there is nothing to indicate and no material to justify the conclusion that the petitioner has any interest in the business of Usha. As will be seen later, the petitioner sells its goods to Usha and receives the price therefor within 90 days. It has no doubt certain responsibilities for servicing the goods sold by Usha but there is no manner of interest direct or indirect in the business of Usha so far as the petitioner is concerned. The terms of the above definition contemplate two persons who are so associated that they are mutually interested in the business of each other. Examples of the kind may be two companies or persons associated as the company and its managing agent or the company and its Secretaries and Treasurers, firms having related partners, companies having common shareholders in the majority and the like. It is very difficult to say that a mere purchase or even a sole selling agent (if Usha could be said to be one) would be a related person within the meaning of the first part of the definition. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that Usha will be a related person under the above portion of the definition clause. Certain judicial decisions to which we shall be referring later also touch upon this aspect of the matter and reinforce our conclusion."
Snow White Industrial Corporation, ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 28 April, 1989
In reply, the Ld. Counsel urged that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Snow White Industrial Corporation (supra) is not comparable on facts and submitted that the test of an agency to sell is that the principal manufacturer continues to be the owner of the goods whereas in the present case, by caluse 13 of the Agreement on delivery to Voltas of the goods, the property in the product shall vest with Voltas and clause 12 specifically says that it is not an agency Agreement. It was, further urged that the warranty clause was the normal standard warranty clause for goods found with manufacturing defects and it would not amount to a facility for returning unsold stock.
Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 January, 1988
32. The next order relied upon by Shri Prabhat Kumar is Prabhat Zarda Factory v. Collector (supra). The relevant facts are : The appellants prior to incorporation were a partnership firm manufacturing branded chewing tobacco. M/s. Ratna Zarda Supply Company another partnership concern was their sole selling agent. Seven out of eleven partners of Ratna were related to one or the other of eight out of nine partners of Prabhat Zarda. The case of the department is that Ratna was a related person of Prabhat Zarda because of mutuality of interest between the two. This Tribunal held that, "as many as 7 partners of Ratna out of the total of 11 were related to 8 out of total of 9 partners of Prabhat. 'The partners having 80% interest together in Ratna were related to partners of Prabhat having together 84/85% interest in Prabhat. With such predominant inter-relationship among the two partners of the two firms, the conclusion is obvious that Ratna, the distributor firm, was a relative of Prabhat, the manufacturing firm. In other words, the Ratna was both a relative and a distributor within the second part of the definition of Section 4(4)(c)". From the above, it is clear that the said case is irrelevant to the facts of the present case. Prabhat Zarda is a relative and distributor falling within the third part of the definition of 'related persons' under Section 4(4)(c) whereas in the present case, the appellant and the distributor are two limited companies. Therefore, the question of relative and distributor does not arise. The only question for consideration is whether the agreement creates any mutuality of interest between the appellant and M/s. Voltas. Therefore, we are of the view that Prabhat Zarda Factory is irrelevant in the facts of the present case.
Collector Of Central Excise, Madras vs T.I. Millers Ltd. Madras & T.I. Diamond ... on 28 March, 1988
The Ld. Counsel cited and relied upon the case of Collector of Central Excise v. T.I. Millers Ltd., Madras and Anr. -1988 (35) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) in this context.
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
In the case of Sylvania & Eaxrnan Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered the issue. In that case the petitioners, Sylvania & Laxman, manufactured electric tube lights for Philips India under a contract with the Philips brand name and the Department sought to treat Philips as related person under Section 4(4)(c). The Delhi High Court held that "The only question is whether there is inter se between the first petitioner and M/s. Philips India Ltd. any 'interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other' proved on the record. There is none. The mere purchase of goods by M/s. Philips India Ltd. from the first petitioner or manufacture of goods by the first petitioner for M/s. Philips India Ltd. does not create inter se interest between the two companies, directly or indirectly in the business of each other. The only interest that M/s. Philips India Ltd. has is to ensure that it gets the goods it has ordered in time and of the specifications required. The only interest in the transaction which the first petitioner has is to get the price of the goods it manufactures for M/s. Philips India Ltd. It is a pure transaction of sale. The interest in the business of each other contemplated by the section is something more than the fulfilment of one single commercial transaction entered into between the parties. M/s. Philips India Ltd. are not concerned whether the first petitioner makes a profit or loss in the transaction covered by the contract between the two. Likewise, the first petitioner is not interested as to whether M/s. Philips India Ltd. sells or does not sell or sells at a profit or loss the goods purchased by it from the first petitioner. Indeed, the two companies are competitors in the trade of manufacturing and selling electric bulbs and electric tube-lights. They cannot have any interest in the business of each other, their interest being confined only to successful fulfilment of one contract in question."
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958
and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. to say that mere fulfilment of commercial transaction between the two parties cannot be said to be an instance of related person.