Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)
Calcutta Choromtype Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 31 March, 1998 cites

Snow White Industrial Corporation, ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 28 April, 1989

This was followed in subsequent cases in Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. T.I. Millers Ltd.. Madras and T.I. Diamond Chain, Madras [1988 (Supp) SCC 361]; Snow White Industrial Corporation vs. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (41) ELT 360 (SC)]. It was also pointed out that this Court in a special appeal ( Civil Appeal No. 9850/95, decided on April 4, 1996) filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the same where the Appellate Tribunal had held that mere commonness of partners and Directors between the buyer and seller was not sufficient to treat the buyer as a `related person' even if entire production was sold through them. We have examined the file of C.A. 9850/95. What was find is that the appeal was filed by the Revenue which was barred by limitation and delay was condoned subject to payment of cost Rs. 500/- payable within four weeks to the counsel for respondents. Since the cost had not been paid the appeal was dismissed by order dated April 4, 1996. This dismissal of the appeal, therefore, does not help the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal in the order, which was impugned in CA 9850/95, found that the assessee had sold 95 out of 96 are lamps to a company of which one of the partners of the assessee firm was a director. On this Department took the view that the company was a related person and sought to assess the goods at a higher price at which the assessee sold the goods to the buyer company. Appellate Tribunal was of the view that merely because there was some common directors between the assessee and the company that itself would not be sufficient ground fro holding that both were related persons. Appellate Tribunal found that no evidence regarding mutuality of interest had been brought on record except the sale of goods by the assessee to the buyer company. It said that while this fact of sale may create one way interest of the company in the business of the assessee firm it was not indicative of the interest of the assessee in the business of the buyer company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 12 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 26 July, 1988

Reference was also made to two orders of the Appellate Tribunal in Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd., vs. Collector of Central Excise [1991 (53) ELT 120 (Tribunal)] and Weikfield Products Co. (India) vs. Collector or Central Excise [1993 (63) ELT 672 (tribunal)]. In the first case, three out of four Directors of the assessee were also the Directors of its whole sale buyer M/s. Western India Class Works. The Tribunal noticed that it was not the case of the department that sales to customers other than to M/s. Western India Glass Works were at prices different from prices of sales to M/s Western India Glass Works. The Appellate Tribunal held that in the absence of any other factor like mutuality of interest, commonness of some Directors was not sufficient to constitute relationship between the two companies which were common independent corporate legal entitles. In the second case, the assessee sold its goods through two broad channels, viz., directly to Canteen Stores Department and to the Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation. While 20% discount was allowed to Canteen Stores Department, 30% discount was allowed to Weikfield Central marketing Organisation. Assessee justified the reason for allowed higher discount in one case because the department was of the view that transaction between the assessee and the Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation could not be treated as at arms length in view of the fact that most of the partners in the firm were close relatives of the Directors of the assessee which was a company company under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellate Tribunal was of the view that the assessee being a corporate concern and Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation a partnership concern, the latter could not be called a relative of the assessee and to consider Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation as a favoured buyer, there must be sufficient proof to show that specifically low price was charged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Workmen Employed In Associated Rubber ... vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., ... on 19 August, 1985

In Workmen vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. [(1985_ 4 SCC 114], resort was had to the principle of lifting the veil to prevent devices to avoid welfare legislation. It was emphasised that regard must be had to substance and not the form of a transaction. Generally and broadly speaking, we may say that the corporate well may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of the public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected etc."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 143 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 30 December, 1987

The Appellate Tribunal was also of the view with reference to Section 4(4) (c) of the Act that if a person is so associated with the assessee that they have interest in the business of each other then the person was a related person of the other within the meaning of the Section. Appellate Tribunal noted that Collector (Appeal) had held that the appellant as well as M/s. Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. were started and established by G.S. Sharma and his family members and further that Assistant Collector had found that the shares of the appellant and the shares of the buyer company were held by the members of the same Sharma family and, thus, by the persons that who were related to each other. The Appellate Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court in Mohanlal Magan Lal Bhavsar (Deseaced) through LRs. and Ors. vs. Union of Indian and Ors. [(1986) 23 ELT 3] and also to tits own decision in Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs CCE. Pune [(1988) 34 ELT 662] where it interpreted the definition of related person. Relying on these two decisions as applicable to the facts of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was of the view that there was identity of interest and M/s. Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd was related person within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the directions aforesaid.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1   2 Next