Union of India & Others Vs. M/s. Purolator India Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1491 (NN) of 1988.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of
the Delhi High Court in W.No. 578 of 1981.)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of
the Delhi High Court in W.No. 578 of 1981.)
Petitioner: Union of India & Others
Respondent: M/s. Purolator India Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1491 (NN) of 1988.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of
the Delhi High Court in W.No. 578 of 1981.)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of
the Delhi High Court in W.No. 578 of 1981.)
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 02, 1989
Appearances:
Mr. A.Subha Rao, Mr. P. Parmeshwaran and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. H.N. Salve, Mr. P.K. Ram and Mr. D.N. Misra, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CENTRAL EXCISES & SALT ACT, 1944:
Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(4)(c), Explanation – Respondent manufactured and sold filters in the brand name of some of its customers – Assessable value – Determination of whole-sale price – Definition of “related person” – Applicability – Appeal dismissed in view of the principles indicated in JT 1989 (3) SC 11.
JUDGEMENT:
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:
1. This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No. 859. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May, 1986.
2. It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notices were issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods. In April, 1977, price list submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16th April, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods. On August 22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, inter-alia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons. A reply was given on 10th September, 1977 by the assessee to the aforesaid letter. First notice was issued asking the assessee to show cause as to why the assessable value be not determined at the price the buyers of the assessee sold the goods (instead of the price at which the assessee sold the goods to its buyers). There was a reply and the second show cause notice was issued on 28th January, 1981. These show cause notices were challenged and the High Court quashed the said notices. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed.
3. The respondent is a registered company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling filters. Some of the goods are sold by the respondent to its customers under the respective brand names. The respondent filed a price list at which price the goods were sold to the customers.
4. In view of the principles indicated in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.859 and the facts adduced before the High Court, the High Court’s judgment cannot be interfered. The appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
1. This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No. 859. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May, 1986.
2. It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notices were issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods. In April, 1977, price list submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16th April, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods. On August 22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, inter-alia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons. A reply was given on 10th September, 1977 by the assessee to the aforesaid letter. First notice was issued asking the assessee to show cause as to why the assessable value be not determined at the price the buyers of the assessee sold the goods (instead of the price at which the assessee sold the goods to its buyers). There was a reply and the second show cause notice was issued on 28th January, 1981. These show cause notices were challenged and the High Court quashed the said notices. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed.
3. The respondent is a registered company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling filters. Some of the goods are sold by the respondent to its customers under the respective brand names. The respondent filed a price list at which price the goods were sold to the customers.
4. In view of the principles indicated in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.859 and the facts adduced before the High Court, the High Court’s judgment cannot be interfered. The appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
