(1.) Cibatul Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the manufacturer"). They are manufacturing U. P. Resins, M. F. Resins and Expoxy Resins. They are "excisable goods" within the meaning of that expression given in section 2(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as "the Excise Act"). Coba Geigy of India Limited are their wholesale buyers. they are a company incorporated in India and are hereinafter referred toas "the buyers". Ciba Geigy limited is a third company incorporated is Switzerland and is referred to hereinafter as "the Swiss company". 65% of the share capital of the manufacture is held by Atul Products Limited, 30% of its share capital is held by the Swiss company and the remaining 5% of its share capital is held by the buyer. So far as the buyer is concerned, 65% of its capital is held by the Swiss Company. the Swiss Company has registered trade marks in respect of which licence has been granted by it to buyer to use them. Two agreements dated 24th March, 1971 and 7th December, 1971 were entered into between the manufacture and the buyer. agreement dated 24th march, 1971 provided for the sale of certain manufactured goods to the buyer. Agreement dated 7th march 1971 is a tripartite agreement between the manufacturer, the buyer and the Swiss Company. Under this agreement, the manufacturer is permitted to affix a certain trade mark of the Swiss Company on goods manufactured by the manufacturer and sold to the buyer under the agreement dated 24th march, 1971. Two more agreements, similar in character, dated 1st June, 1973 and 1sr December, 1973, in respect of certain other godds manufactured by the manufacturer were entered into.
(2.) The manufacturer is required by the Central excise authorities to pay excise duty on the price which the manufacturer charges the buyer but which the buyer charges his buyer on the ground that the manufacturer and the buyer are 'related persons". Therefore the manufacturer has filed this petition in which, broadly speaking, it has raised the two-fold challenge:
(3.) The examination of the first contention necessarily involves the examination of the legislative competence of the Parliament in this behalf under Art 246 read with entry84 in the Union List. Entry 84 reads thus:-