later excise duty on them was changed from specific to ad valorem duty.
the said bajaj electricals held 180000 shares in the respondent companypany.
as in the old s. 4 the terms in which the value was defined remained the price charged by the assessee in the companyrse of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal.
except m s bajaj electricals ltd.
the new scheme was merely more comprehensive and the language employed more precise and definite.
the aforesaid four companypanies are referred to as the foreign companypanies.
being aggrieved by the insistance of the central excise authori ties that the latter prices should be the value for levy of excise duty the respondent companypany approached the high court of allahabad by civil misc.
the respond ent companypany was registered under the indian companypanies act 19 13.
philips eindhoven hol land general electricals company limited london and mazda lamp co. limited licencester england.
the customer companypanies thereafter sold their products.
the high companyrt by its order dated 14th may 1974 allowed the writ petition and held that the prices at which the respondent companypany sold its products to the customer companypa nies should be the value for levy of excise duty and number the price at which the customer companypanies sold these to wholesale dealers and others.
the respondent challenged the direction of the superintendent and had companytended that for the purpose of levy of excise duty the value of its products should be the prices at which it sold those products to the customer companies and number the prices at which these in turn sold those products to wholesale dealers or others.
at first excise duty on lamps was a specific duty.
1976 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil miscellaneous writ number 179 of 1976.
writ number 2 189 of 1973.
after such change there was a companytroversy between the respondent companypany and the central excise authorities as to whether the prices charged by the respondent company pany to its customer companypanies for its products or the prices charged by the customer companypanies when they sold them to wholesale dealers and others should be the basis for determination of the value for levy of excise duty.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the high companyrt of allahabad dated 16th december 1976.
ram and d.n.
it sold its entire output of the products exclusively to the following customer companypa nies bajaj electricals limited philips india limited crompton greaves limited general electric company of india limited mazda lamps company limited on the lamps manufactured by the respondent companypany it put the brand names of trade marks like philips osram mazda crompton and bajaj of the respective customer companypa nies according to their directions.
the customer companypanies in turn sold these lamps under their names at prices higher than the prices charged by the respondent companypany.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2858 of 1977.
from the judgment and order dated 16.12.
n. salve ravinder narain k.c.
at the relevant time there were five shareholders of the companypany namely bajaj electricals limited bombay cromp ton parkinson limited london n.v.
the respondent company was engaged in manufacture of electric lamps fluo rescent lamps and miniature lamps.
sushma suri for the appellants.
the respondent companypany had submitted its price list in form iv to the superintendent central excise companytainingthe price at which five companypanies to which it sold its entire output hereinafter referred to as the customer companypanies sold those products.
excise duty on electric lamps and fluorescent lamps was levied for the first time in the year 1965.
subba rao p. parmeshwaran and mrs.
these are called b share holders.
misra for the respondents.
the question in this case was the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the central excises salt act 1944 hereinafter referred to as the act .
the four foreign companypanies together held 180000 shares.
dua p.k.
