Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all these cases their own plant and machinery. The clauses of the purchase order in these cases are in no way different from those considered by the Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above. The only distinction pointed out by Shri Ashok Haranahally is that in these cases, the said raw materials were supplied by the buyers. But this alone cannot lead to an inference that the petitioners are not independent manufacturers. Even condition No. 19 which relates to supply of raw materials does not say raw material is compulsorily to be supplied by the buyers.
Union Of India & Ors vs Hind Lamp Ltd on 2 May, 1989
In the above view of the matter, he pleaded that unless it could be shown by the authorities that there was a mutuality of interest by reason of the factors as enumerated above, the provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(iii) could not be invoked. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the learned lower authority. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I, v. Hind Lamp Ltd. reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). Mutuality of interest has to be shown by reason of other mutual dealings or other common factors between the two which could show that both the parties have an interest in the business of each other. No such circumstance in the present case has been brought on record.
Pilky Footwear Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
4. The learned Counsel in reply has pleaded that the ratio of this decision will not be applicable as in that case one company was controlling the other. They have financial interest inter se and common directors. These circumstances do not exist in the present case.
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988
In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.)
Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985
and that of Empire Industries v. Union of India as reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C).
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Joint Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... vs Food Specialities Ltd on 30 September, 1985
In the case of Joint Secretary to Govt of India v. Food Specialities Ltd., which was delivered a few days after the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. CibatuI Limited was pronounced the Supreme Court took a similar view on the basis of the clauses of the agreement and other material considered in that case which were identical. Both the judgments were rendered by Pathak, J. (as he then was).