SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 474

2002(7) Supreme 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, CJI., N. Santosh Hegde & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Collector of Central Excise and Customs -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 969 of 1995
Decided on 11-4-2002

IMPORTANT POINT
Two Public Ltd. Companies have common directors does not mean that one company has an interest in the business of other and that they are related persons in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act.

Headnote:Central Excise Act-Section 4- Related person -Appellant assessee a public limited company was manufacturer of glassware and it sold its product to other limited company-Assessee Co. held share in other company and that other company also held share in assessee company-Chairman and three directors were common-Revenue contended that they were "related persons" and price at which assessee sold glassware should be maked up for purposes of valuation for excise duty-Case of revenue was accepted by Tribunal-Appeal-Share holders of a public Limited Company do not by reason only of their share holding have interest in business of company-Two public Ltd. companies having common directors would not mean that one company has interest in business of other-Assessee and other company could not be concluded were related persons-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : In our view, this is the heart of the matter. The shareholders of a public limited company do not, by reason only of their shareholding, have an interest in the business of the company. Equally, the fact that two public limited 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. (Para 7)

       

ORDER

The appellant is a public limited company. It manufactures glassware. One of the purchasers of such glassware during the period under appeal, namely, 6th September, 1979 to 15th January 1983 was the Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited. Because the assessee held shares in this chemical company and the chemical company held shares in the assessee and the chairman and three directors were common, it was contended by the 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 mutual interest in the business of each other. Furthermore, the chairman and the three directors are common and it is implied, both the companies are managed by same management. It is not a mere case where one company is holding shares in other company but both the companies are holding some shares in each other in addition to having common chairman and the three directors. With this factual position we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order holding that M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. was a related person under section 4(4)(c) of the Act."

3. The relevant provision during the period with which we are concerned, section 4 of the Central Excise Act, reads insofar as is relevant, thus :

"Section 4 Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise

(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods, with reference to value, such value shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be-

(a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale;

Provided that-

(i) Where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, 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, then, 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 wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related persons shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related persons) who sell such goods in retail;

(b) Where the normal price of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertaina
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top