9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue that they were "related persons" and that the price at which the assessee sold glassware to the chemical company should be marked up for the purposes of valuation for excise duty. 2.The matter having reached the Tribunal, the case put forth by the Revenue was accepted on this basis : "In the present case both the companies were set up by the same family and the appellant company is holding 9% of the shares of M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. while M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. holds 14% shares of the total shares held in the appellant company. It is clear from the fact that they have mutuality interest in the business of each other. Furthermore, the Chairman and the three Directors are common and it is implied both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such class of buyers; (ii) Where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, them, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; (iii) Where the assessee so arranges that the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany of the other, which was not the case here. The fact that the assessee held shares of the chemical company and that the chemical company held shares of the assessee and that they had common Directors could not lead to the conclusion that the assessee and the chemical company had an interest, directly or indirectly, in each other's business so as to make them related persons. 5.Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that it was not necessary that one public limited company should be the holding or the subsidiary company of another public limited company, for the definition of 'related person' in Section 4 was inclusive. He submitted that, in the present case, the assessee held shares in the chemical company and vice versa and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed companies have common Directors does not mean that the one company has an interest in the business of the other. It is, therefore, not possible to uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee and the chemical company were related persons. This being so, it is unnecessary to go into the alternate arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee. 8.At this stage of the judgment, learned Counsel for the Revenue draws our attention to the judgment, of a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, in Calcutta Chromotype Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (99 E.L.T. 202). It does not appear to us that the judgment carries the case of the Revenue any further, nor does learned Counsel so suggest. He says that he has referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
