Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5619 of 1994
Appeal (civil) 7216 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Flash Laboratories Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/12/2002
BENCH:
M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan & D.M. Dharmadhikari.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Both these appeals are filed by Messrs. Flash Laboratries Limited, a
company engaged in the manufacture of tooth paste ("Prudent"), falling under
chapter Heading 3306.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The appellant has been selling its products to their holding company, Messrs.
Parle Products Limited, which is a subsidiary company of Messrs. Parle Biscuits
Limited. The appellant was found paying duty at the price at which the goods
were being sold to the holding company, namely, Parle Products Limited. A
show cause notice was issued to the appellant company alleging that Messrs.
Parle Products Limited and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited were "related
persons" and were purchasing goods at lower prices and selling the same at
higher prices and that the appellant had not filed the price list in Part IV for the
sale to a related person, rather they filed the price list in Part I. The Revenue
took objection that this amounted to mis-statement. The appellant was also
asked to show cause as to why Rs.11,30,570.35p should not be demanded from
him as differential duty for the period September, 1986 to May, 1989. The
appellant was given a personal hearing and the Collector of Central Excise
confirmed the demand for differential duty. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant filed an appeal before the Custom Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the demand, but reduced the penalty to
Rs.50,000/-. Civil Appeal No. 5619 of 1994 is directed against that decision of
the Tribunal.
Based on the original order dated 26.4.1991, further show cause notices
were issued to the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal to set aside the
order in original, dated 26.4.1991. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise,
dropped the proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the issue
regarding "related person" had already been decided in favour of the appellant by
the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, vide order dated 23.8.1991.
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise,
New Delhi, and the appellant also filed cross-objections. The Commissioner,
Central Excise, New Delhi, remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority
to re-examine the same in the light of the final order passed on 19.5.1994.
In the de novo proceedings before the Asstt. Commissioner, the appellant
contended that the order of the Tribunal dated 19.5.1994 could not be made
applicable as the order of the appellate authority must hold good. The Asstt.
Commissioner confirmed the demand by holding that all the three parties were
’related persons’ in terms of Section 4(4)[c] of the Act. The appellant then
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi.
The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and
aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Custom,
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By final order No. 828/2000-A ,
the appeal was dismissed and it was held that the four show cause notices
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
issued to the appellant were sustainable in law. Aggrieved by the same, Civil
Appeal No. 7216 of 2000 is filed.
We heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for
the Revenue. The counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant-
company, Messrs. Flash Laboratories Limited is not a "related person" as
against Parle Products Limited and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited. Admittedly,
the appellant-company is a subsidiary company of Parle Products Limited.
Messrs. Parle Products Limited has also another subsidiary company, that is,
Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited. Sixty per cent of the products manufactured by
the appellant are sold to Messrs. Parle Products Limited and forty per cent of the
products are sold to Parle Biscuits Limited. According to the respondent, the
appellant and Messrs. Parle Biscuits could be treated as "related person" within
the meaning of Section 4(4)[c] of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with valuation of excisable
goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise and as per Section 4(1)(a), the
value shall be deemed to be 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. Section
4(4)(c) is an exception to this general concept of sale. Section 4(4)(c) of the
Central Excise Act reads as follows :
"4(4)(c). ’related person’ means a person who is so associated
with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in
the business of each other and includes a holding company, a
subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee,
and any sub-distributor of such distributor."
The definition of "related person" shows that when an assessee is so
closely associated with another person, directly or indirectly, in the business,
then it could be said that they are "related persons". The definition further shows
that the holding company and subsidiary company have got special significance.
It is clear from the definition that there must be mutuality of interest between the
two persons. In Union of India vs. Bombay Tyre International (1984) 1
SCC 467, the constitutional validity of this provision was challenged and it was
contended that the definition of the expression "related person" was arbitrary as
it would include within its ambit a distributor of the assessee. But, this Court
held that "related person" being a relative, a distributor would not come within its
fold. It was held that a related person is a person who is so associated with the
assessee that they have interest, direct or direct, in the business of each other
and includes a holding company or a subsidiary company and is being used in
sufficiently restricted sense for employing a legal fiction.
In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atic Industries Limited (1984) 3
SCC 575, the assessee was a limited company manufacturing dyes. Fifty per
cent share capital of the assessee was held by a limited company, AP Limited
and the remaining fifty per cent thereof was held by a foreign company, ICI
Limited, London. The ICI Limited, London, was having fifty per cent share
capital of an Indian company, CDC Limited. The assessee sold the dyes
manufactured by it in wholesale to AP Limited and CDC Limited at a uniform
price and the wholesale buyers in turn sold the dyes to dealers and consumers at
a higher price. The Central Excise authorities held that the wholesale buyers
were ’related persons’ within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central
Excise Act. The High Court set aside this view and held that the buyer
companies were not related persons. In appeal before this Court, the Revenue
sought to rely on the applicability of the first part of Section 4(4)(c), which
defines "related person" to mean "a person who is so associated with the
assessee that they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each
other." While dismissing the appeal, this Court explained the circumstances
under which two concerns could be treated as "related persons".
"What the first part of the definition requires is that that the person
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
who is sought to be branded as a ’related person’ must be a person
who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest,
directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. It is not enough
that the assessee has an interest, direct or indirect, in the business
of the person alleged to be a related person nor is it enough that
the person alleged to be a related person has an interest, direct or
indirect, in the business of the assessee. It is essential to attract
the applicability of the first part of the definition that the assessee
and the person alleged to be a related person must have interest,
direct or indirect, in the business of each other. Each of them must
have a direct or indirect interest in the business of the other. The
equality and degree of interest which each has in the business of
the other may be different; the interest of one in the business of the
other may be direct, while the interest of the latter in the business
of the former may be indirect."
Having regard to the above decision and the plain meaning of the
definition of "related person", it is to be noticed that the appellant is a subsidiary
company of Messrs. Parle Products Limited and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited is
also a subsidiary company of Messrs. Parle Products Limited. Therefore, the
relationship between the appellant and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited, though
indirect, they have mutual interest in the business of each other. The facts
and circumstances of the case show that there is mutuality of interest between
the three companies as sixty per cent of the products of the appellant are sold to
Messrs. Parle Products Limited and the remaining forty per cent of the total
product of tooth paste is being sold to Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited.
Moreover, Messrs. Parle Products Limited are incurring the expenses for sales
promotion and advertisement for the sale of the appellant’s product, namely,
"Prudent tooth paste".
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find
any reason to disagree with the views expressed by the Tribunal.
In Civil Appeal No. 7216 of 2000, the appellant further contended that it
received four show cause notices dated 10.6.1991, 20.8.1991, 1612.1991 and
13.4.1992. The appellant contended that the Asstt. Collector held that the
appellant and Messrs. Parle Products Limited and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited
are "related persons" but this order was reversed by the Collector vide order
dated 23.8.1991 and according to the appellant, the department did not
challenge the subsequent order and therefore the subsequent order attained
finality. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in Paragraph 7 of the impugned
order. It was held by the Tribunal that the period relied upon by the appellants is
July’ 89 to Jan’ 91 whereas the SCNs dealt with in the Order-in-Original
pertained to the period 14.2.1991 to 31.3.1992 and that these SCNs arose out of
the Order-in-original No. 87/CE/01 and this order was not challenged by the
appellants and accordingly the tribunal was of the view that the four SCNs and
the Order-in-Original No. 87/CE/91 are sustainable in law.
No other materials are placed before us to show that the finding of the
Tribunal is not correct. We are also told that the appellant had paid the excise
duty pursuant to these notices and the same must have been passed on to the
consumers. In that view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek any
relief. Both the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.