Dipak Misra, J.

1. The factual matrix, the questions raised, the points of law urged and the relief claimed being interlinked, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the factual matrix in each of the writ petition shall be separately dealt with. As the counsel for the parties addressed this Court in Writ Petition No. 1233/99 at length, I will advert; to the factual backdrop of the said writ petition first.

2. Before uncurtaining the factual backdrop it is worthwhile to mention that invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1233/99 has prayed for quashment of the show cause notice, Annexure P-2 dated, 23-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, the sole respondent.

3. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner Company is a limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is situated at Bombay and it has a manufacturing factory at Mandideep, Raisen. It is engaged in Manufacturing of detergent powder under the name Ariel falling under Chapter heading 3402.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. Ariel was being manufactured and marketed by the petitioner Company, namely, Procter and Gamble India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PGIL') till 31-10-1993. Thereafter it is being marketed by another Company called Procter and Gamble Home Products Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PGHP'). In the month of November, 1993 PGIL divested the business of Ariel Detergent Powder comprising of Ariel Blue and Ariel Green in favour of the PGHP for a consideration of Rs. 17.8 crores. The PGIL informed the Central Excise Authorities about the divestiture of its business vide letter dated 5-1-1994 along with the price list. In the said list PGIL has specifically mentioned that from November 1, 1993 Ariel is being sold to PGHP and that Mr. D.A. Thomas and Mr. S. Bhattacharya are also Directors of PGHP Ltd. It was also mentioned there: n that the Ariel was sold to the stockist through Depot all over the country but consequent to the transfer of marketing and distribution to PGHP Ltd. effective from November 1,1993, the entire production of Ariel would be sold to PGHP Ltd.

4. According to the petitioner after the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Zone-II, Bhopal issued a show cause notice to PGIL regarding price list No. 43 dated 3-1-1994. In the show cause notice it was mentioned as under :-

"You have shown in para Nos. 2 and 14 of question naire that, from Nov. 1, 1993 the entire production of Ariel is being sold to PC HP Ltd. Being a mutual interest between these two companies i.e. P & G Ir dia Limited and PGHP limited, it appears that M/s. PGHP is your related person. Further you have not submitted a copy of agreement entered into by you with PGHP Ltd. for verification to this office."

The petitioner vide its letter dated 11-1-1)94 clarified that it has transferred the marketing and distribution of Ariel Vlicro System to another Company PGHP w.e.f. 1-11-1993 and consequently the entire production of Ariel Micro System manufactured by the petitioners being sold to PGHP. It was also pointed out that PGHP is not a related person to the petitioner within the meaning of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also pointed out that PGIL and PGHP do not have mutuality of interest in the business of each other. It was highlighted that majority of shares of PGIL are held by Richardson Vicks Inc. USA and the majority of shares of the PGHP are held by Proctor & Gamble India Holding Inc. USA. Thus, as averred, the petitioner clarified and submitted the price list in Part-I and that of Part IV is not the appropriate part for declaring the assessable value. A copy of the said reply has been brought on record as Annexure F-6. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-I, issued a letter, dated 25-4-19