9911796707
TMI BlogRelated personX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before the Settlement Commission by such person; (iii) where such person is a firm or association of persons or body of individuals, any individual who was entitled to more than fifty per cent. of the profits in such firm, association of persons or body of individuals, at any time before the date of application before the Settlement Commission by such person; (iv) where such person is a Hindu undivided family, the karta of that Hindu undivided family. Correct construction of Section 4(1)(a) proviso (iii) and Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise and Salt Act as they stood prior to the 2000 amendment of Section 4 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD VERSUS M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD. ANOTHER- 2015 (4) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT (c) rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, the Court held again that the idea of including these two types of companies within the definition of related person is only so that the corporate veil of such companies can be lifted so that economic realities behind the legal fa ade can be looked at so that tax is not evaded or avoided. In Flash Laboratories Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 86, the appellant was a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. M/s Parle Biscuits Limited is also a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. What was in question in that case was the relationship between two subsidiary companies. It is clear that the relationship between a subsidiary company and another subsidiary company would not be governed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice at which the dyes were ordinarily sold by Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. This view taken by the Assistant Collector was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the assessee on the one hand and Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited on the other were not related persons and the wholesale cash price charged by the assessee to Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited and not the price at which the latter sold the dyes to the dealers or the consumers, represented the true measure of the value of the dyes for the purpose of chargeability to excise duty. This conclusion reached by the High Court was assailed before us by the learned Attorney-General appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
