9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned order concludes that Microsoft Corporation , USA is not the owner of the appellant or of MGSCI even though these entities may be subsidiaries of Microsoft Corporation USA, as they are distinct legal entities and therefore appellant and MGSCI are separate legal entities. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that while a holding company may have effective control over a subsidiary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice G. Raghuram and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Shankar Balu, C.A. For The Respondent : Mr. A.K. Nigam, A.R. [Order per: G. Raghuram] The appellant is the assessee and is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad IV. The impugned order confirmed customs duty demand at the appropriate rate on capital good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 3. In course of time, the business of the appellant and of MGSCI expanded. The appellant occupied another premises also. As there was vacant space available in the premises occupied and owned by the appellant along with certain common facilities on 13.6.2008 the appellant again applied for sharing of specified assets with MGSCI, a group company. 3. On 5.6.2008, the appellant and M/s MGSCI ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l entities and therefore appellant and MGSCI are separate legal entities. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that while a holding company may have effective control over a subsidiary, such control does not amount to ownership of the holding company over the subsidiaries, which is the condition for sharing of assets. 5. The impugned order suffers from no error in concluding that Microsoft Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
