REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CIBATUL LIMITED Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SIR BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY V. THE PROVINCE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR ONTARIO V. RECIPROCAL INSURERS AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
MADRAS V. MESSRS BODDU PAIDANNA AND SONS [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX GUJARAT V. RAIPUR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
RALLA RAM V. THE PROVINCE OF EAST PUNJAB [REFERRED]
LORD ATKIN IN GALLAGHER V. LYNN [REFERRED]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER V. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
NAG RAJ PATODIA V. R. K. BIRLA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
THE HINGIR-RAMPUR COAL CO. LTD. AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
A.K.ROY AND ANOTHER V. VOLTAS LTD. [REFERRED]
CHATURBHAI M. PATEL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN STATE V. ARDESHIR HORMUSJI BHIWANDIWALA [REFERRED]
RAM NARIAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
LILA VATI BAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER BHOPAL [REFERRED]
RANCHBODDAS ATMARAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL AND CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
R C JALL PARSI VS. AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED VS. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED :GANESH FLOUR MILLS CO LIMITED DELHI:MODI SUGAR MILLS:DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
PATEL GORDHANDAS HARGOVINDAS VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD [REFERRED]
KALWA DEVADATTAM KALWA DEVADATTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SHINDE BROTHER VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RATCHUR [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY 1 VS. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX MADHYA PRADESH INDORE VS. JASWANT SINGH CHARAN SINGH [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISRA [REFERRED]
SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED BOMBAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SUDHIR CHANDRA NAWN VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
JULLUNDER RUBBER GOODS MANU VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HARBOUR DIVISION II MADRAS VS. YOUNG MENS INDIAN ASSOCIATION REGD MADRAS [REFERRED]
SECOND GIFT TAX OFFICER MANGALORE VS. D H NAZARETH [REFERRED]
H H PRINCE AZAM JHA BAHADUR DEAD VS. EXPENDITURE TAX OFFICER:SRI RAJ KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH DHILLON [REFERRED]
AMAR DYE CHEM LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
ANANT MILLS COMPANY LIMITED ARYODAYA SPG AND WVG MILLS COMPANY LIMITED MUNICIPAL CORPN OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD STATE OF GUJARAT ARYODAYA SPG AND WVG MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT:THE ANANT MILLS CO LTD:THE MUNICIPAL CORPN OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD:THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD [REFERRED]
ATIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. H H DEWA ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED]
FLYING OFFICER S SUNDARAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LTD VS. VERAVAL PATAN JOINT MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED]
DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CABINET SECRETARIAT DEPTT PERSONNEL AND A R GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. SAROJ KUMAR BHOTIKA [REFERRED]
WALLACE BROTHERS AND CO LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED]
GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cibatul Limited a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 is the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the manufacture). They are manufacturing U. F. Resins M.F. Resins and Expoxy Resins. They are excisable goods within the meaning of that expression given in sec. 2 (d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act). Ciba Geigy of India Limited are their wholesale buyers. They are a company incorporated in India and are hereinafter referred to as the buyer. Ciba Geigy Limited is a third company incorporated in Switzerland and is referred to hereinafter as the Swiss company. 65% of the share capital of the manufacturer is held by Atul Products Limited 35 of its share capital is held by the Swiss company and the remaining 55% 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 the buyer to use them. Two agreements dated 24th March 1971 and 7 h December 1971 were entered into between the manufacturer 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 1st December 1973 in respect of certain other goods manufactured by the manufacturer were entered into.

(2.) The manufacturer is required by Central excise authorities to pay excise duty not 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 with read Entry 84 in the Union List. Entry 84 reads thus:-

Click here to view full judgment.

CIBATUL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address