2015 (10) TMI 1937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri Harish R., Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondent holds 100% shares of M/s. Healthline Pvt. Ltd. (HLPL). Therefore, HLPL is a subsidiary for the respondent and therefore, the respondent has full management control over HLPL. There is no dispute on this fact. Entertaining a view that the clearances of HLPL have to be taken into account for deciding eli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In our opinion this fact alone cannot make a difference. For all purposes the holding company would be having more than 50% of the shares of the subsidiary company and in this case admittedly 100% of the shares are held by the holding company. When 100% of the shares are held, interest is paid on the loan or not does not really make a difference for the transaction between the two. Because in any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d there was no interference between two companies in administrative control, exercised by either company. (f)      The ratio of Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. M/s. Gammon Far Chems limited reported in 2003 (152) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.) is not applicable to the case of M/s. HLPL as the department had not established that they (M/s. HLPL) had produced go....