Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Food Specialities Limited vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise ... on 31 August, 1976 cites

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

Shri H.L. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. (supra) and in Atic Industries case, the Government of India was in error in holding that the petitioners and Nestle's were not parties dealing at arm's length merely because they were not unfamiliar and independent parties. He further urged that brand name was the property of Nestle's Products (India) Ltd., had included in the price at which the Nestle's sold that products in the market could not possibly enter the 'wholesale cash price' at which the products could be sold by the petitioner to Nestle's or any other buyer since the brand name of Nestle's was not petitioner's to sell.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 200 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Atic Industries Ltd vs H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector Of Central ... on 14 February, 1975

Shri H.L. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. (supra) and in Atic Industries case, the Government of India was in error in holding that the petitioners and Nestle's were not parties dealing at arm's length merely because they were not unfamiliar and independent parties. He further urged that brand name was the property of Nestle's Products (India) Ltd., had included in the price at which the Nestle's sold that products in the market could not possibly enter the 'wholesale cash price' at which the products could be sold by the petitioner to Nestle's or any other buyer since the brand name of Nestle's was not petitioner's to sell.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 122 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

The Vacuum Oil Company vs The Secretary Of State For India on 21 April, 1932

By that time the petitioner was apparently better advised and, therefore, the petitioner claimed, relying on the decision of the Privy Council in Vacuum Oil Co. v. Secretary of State for India-A.I.R. 1932 P.C. 168 and Ford Motor Co. of India Ltd., v. Secretary of State for India A.I.R. 1938 P.C. 15, that the products should be valued at the prices at which they were sold to Nestle's. By the time the Government of India took up the revision petition for consideration, the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., had also been rendered. The Government of India, however, held that the petitioner and Nestle's could not be considered as parties dealing at arm's length as they were not unfamiliar and independent parties, the petitioner being a subsidiary of Messrs Nestle's Products (India) Limited, Nassau, Bahama I lands, manufacturing the goods for them and supplying the same to their Indian branch. It was also observed that the products were produced and sold under the brand name of Nestle's and, therefore, everything that went into the value of the brand name should also go into the value of the goods. The price at which the petitioner sold the products to Nestle's could not be taken as the value for the purpose of levy of excise duty as it did not include the value of the brand name. It is this decision of the Government of India that is canvassed in these 14 writ petitions.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 5 February, 1960

The Collector of Central Excise purported to rely on the decision of Calcutta High Court in National Tobacco Co. v. Collector, Central Excise and Ors-'A.I.R: 1961, Calcutta 474 and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Frazair Corporation, Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors.- 1969 (2) A.W.L.R. 57, both of which, we may mention here, were over-ruled by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. The petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government of India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1