1999 (12) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. sold it to their dealers. The department took the view that assessment must be on the value at which the goods were sold by Rallis India Ltd. to their dealers. This view was taken on the ground that the assessee is a subsidiary company of Rallis India Ltd. Without entering a finding regarding relationship between Rallis India Ltd. and the assessee in this case, adjudicating authority relied on its finding in its order-in-original No. l/MP/88 dated 28-7-1988. In that order the adjudicating authority observed : "Charge in brief in all the show cause notices is that they sold their entire electrical fans manufactured by them to M/s. Rallis India Ltd., Bombay, who in turn sold to various customers. M/s. Rallis India Ltd. charged at higher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resenting the appellant, relationship cannot be presumed unless the department succeeds in showing mutuality of interest. In support of this argument, learned counsel brought to our notice two decisions of the Bombay High Court, the case of Dawn Apparels Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 401 and in the case of Ralliwolf Ltd v. Union of India, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 220. In the first case, learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court took the view that the mere fact that assessee happened to be the subsidiary of another company will not in any way go without establishing that the transaction between the subsidiary company and the other company was not at arms length. For a proper understanding of the law stated by the Bombay High Court, we....