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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 352

C.MOOKERJEE, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – Appellant
Versus
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ATUL SETALVAD, C.J.SHAH, K.C.SIDHVA, R.V.DESAI, S.SHANKARARAMAKRISHNAN

C. MOOKERJEE, C. J.

( 1 ) THE short point in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the price charged by the Petitioner-Respondent Company to its sole distributors M/s. Voltas Ltd. represented the wholesale cash price within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as the said provision stood before 1-10-1975) for determination of excise duty on the tractors manufactured by the Petitioner-Respondent Company. Before we deal with the question, we may briefly set out the facts.

( 2 ) THE International Tractor Company of India Ltd. with which the Petitioner Company subsequently had merged during the period from 4th October 1971 to 11th February 1972 and from 14th February 1972 to 12th October 1972 had sold diverse number of tractors of the said Company to M/s. Voltas Ltd. under a distributorship agreement dated 17th March 1970. The said distributor Company in turn had sold the said tractors to various parties. In the event the said sales during the two periods in question were on the basis of principal to principal without any extra commercial considerations as claimed by the Petitioner-Respondent which was upheld by t






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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top