UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

ATIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED

• Jwte 22, 1984 . . .

[P.N. BHAGWATI, R.S. PATHAK AND

!\MARENJ?RA NATH SEN, JJ.J

Central Excise. and Salt Act, 1944-Clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 as i( stood after its amendmentby sec. 2 of the Central Act 22 of 1973~ >-- ConsitUtationaJ validity of. ·

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944-The words "related person" occurriflC in claitse (c) of subSection (4) of sec. 4 as it stood after it~ amendment by sec. 2 of the Central A.ct 22 of 1973-Dejinitton and applicability of.

' Bank Guarntee-Whether the High Court was right in directing the costs of /urilishing bank guarantee to be paid by the Revenue to (he assessee in cases wh.ere the demand for duty is quashed a~ unjustified.

The reSpondent-assessee, a limited company, was engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes. Its 50 per cent share capital was held by Atul • products Ltd. and the remaining 50 per cent by Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. London wHich also had a subsidiary company fully owned by it,"called

mperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Impenal Chemical Industries (India) pvt. Ltd, ceased to be a subsidiary company wholly owned_ by the Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. London on 13th March 1978, since 60 per

cent of the share capital of Imperial Cheniical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, was offered to the pub.lie in pursuance of the policy of the Government of India requiring ihat not more !ha~ 40o/oof the share Capital of an ltdian copany should be held by a forign sharehplder. ConSequent up<in this dilutiQn e forcii&'n Shareholding, the name of Imperial Chemical Industries (lnQJa) Pvt. Ltd, was changed to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.

The assessee at all material times sold the large hulk of dyes rnanufac~ tured by it in wholesale to Atul Products Ltd. and Imperial Chemical Illdus~ tries (India) Pvt. Limited which subsequently came to be known as Crescent Dyes and chemicals Ltd. at a uniform price applicable alike to both these wholesale buyers and these wholesale _buyers sold these dyes to dealers and consumers at a higller price which inter. alia. included the expenses incurred by

UNION v. ATIC INDUSTRIES 931

them as also their profit. The traCsactions between the assessee on the one A hand and Atul Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited on the other were as principal to principal and the wholesale price charged by the assessee to Atul Products Ltd and Crescent Dyes and. Chemicals Ltd. was the sole consideration for the sale and no ex:tra-crimmercial considerations entered in the detrmination of such price.

The aSsessee went on clearing the dyes manufactlired by it after payment of excise duty as per the price 1ist submitted by it on the basis of the wholesale price charged to Atul Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. as the same was approved by the Asst. Collector on 29th October, 1975.

The Superintendent Of Central Excise, however, isued a notice to the assessee on 31st July: 1976 calling upon the assessee to show cause why the earlier decision approving the price list should not b"° reviewed and.the differential duty worked out on the basis of selling price charged by Atul Products Ltd. and Cresceat Dyes & Cheinicals Ltd. should not be recovered w.e.f. 1st October 1975 on the ground . that the assessee on the one hand and Atul

Product~ Ltd. ~-nd Crescent Dyes and Chernicals Ltd. on the other 'vere "related pesons" and the assessable value .of *'he dyes manufactured by the assessee was therefore liable to be calculated on the basjs of the price at which Atul Products L1d. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals- Ltd. sold the Dyes to the dealers and the consumers. The assessee in its reply dated 31st . August 1976 pointed out that the assessee on the one hand and Atul Products ""' Ltd. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. on the other Were not "related

persons" within the meaning of the definition of that term contained in clause

(c) of subsection (4) of section 4 of the amended Central Excise and Salt Act

1944. The Asstt. Collector was however not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and viewed, his earlier order of approval of the price list and confirmed the demand Of differentia 1 duty which came to an aggregate amount of Rs 1, 17, 77, 737,65 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1975 and directed th<:> asscssee to file a fresh price list on the basis of the selling price cllarged by Atul Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.

The assessee thereupon fl.ld a \vrit p ctition in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the validity of the demand made by the Asstt.

Collector on two grounds namely, (i) that the concept of "related .per- . son" occuring in , clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the amended Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. was outside the legislative competence Of Parliament under Art. 226 read with Efltry 84 in the Union List and was therefore u.nconstitutional and void ; &

(ii) that the assessee .on the one hand and A tu l Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. on the other were not ''related persons" and the wholesle cash price charged by the assessee to .A tul Products Ltd. and Cres-· cept Dyes and Chemicals Ltd., and not the price at which the latter sold the dyes to the dealrs or the consumers represented the true measure of the value of the yes for the purpose of Chargeabiiity to excise duty. The High Court llowed the writ petition dn these two grounds and also gave direction 'to the Revenue for paying the costs incurred by, the assesse:e in

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.Ii.., •. cJnneCtion with the bank guarantee furnished by it.

Hence the apJ, eal to this Court by certificate granted under Art. 132 and 133 (1) of the Constitution.

Allowing the appeal in par~,· !he Court.

HELD : (1) On a proper interpretation of the definition of "related person" in subsec'tion (4) (c) of sec. 4, the words "relative and a distributor of the assessee" do not refer to any distributor but they are li.rnited only to a_ diStributor who is a relat_ive of, the assessee within the meaning of thi! Companies Act, 1956. The definition of •irelated person" is not und_uly wide and does a( suffei' from any constitutional infirmity. It is within the legislative compe, ence of Parliament. The decision of the High Court holding that "the concept of related person occurring in

arnendd section 4 is ultra vires the. legislative corn petence of Parliament under Article 256 read \vith Entry 84 in the Union List and striking down clause (c) 'or sub-section

(4) of sec. 4 as also. the ex.Pression "the buyer -is P_ot arelated perSon nd'' in clause '(a) of sub-section (1) of sec.

and proviso

(lii) to that clause mllst ccnsequently be set aside and it must :be -held that these provisioi:ts are .constitutionally valid.

[937 E-H]

Union of Iµdia v. 467 applied,

High Court judgment in 21F ebruary 1979 reversed.

Bombay. Tyres International Ltd. [1984] I SCC

Special: Civil Appln. No. 119.of 1976 decided on 20 ·

(2) , The first part-of the definition of "related person" in clause ( c) of sub-section (4) of sec. 4 defines 'related persbn' to mean "a t:erson who is so assoicated with the assessee that they have.interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other" It is not enough that the .asses.see has an .interest, direct or iodi'rect _ in, the business of the person a11eged to, be a related person nor is it ertough that the person allehged to be a related pesson

as an. inte:est, direct or indirect in the business of the assessee.

To attract the applicability of the first part .of the definitiorl, the assessee and the person alleged to be a related 11erson must b3.ve interest, direct of indirect in the bu_siness of each other. Each of them must ba('e a diiect or indirect interest in the business of the other. The quality 'and degree of interest which .each -has in the business of the other m'ay be di°lferent ; the interest of one in the business of the other may be direct while the interest of the latter in th~ business of the former may be indirect.

That would nOt make . any difference so long as each has got some interest, direct Of indirect in the business of the other.

(93~ G-H; 939 A-BJ

(3) (i) Jn the present case Atul Products J., td. has undoubtedly interest in the business of the assessee Since it holds 50% of the share c'!pital

of the assessee and has interest as shareholder in the business carried on by the a.sessec.

B_ut, it connot be said that tfte assessee, a Ltd. company, has any interest, d, irect or indirect in the business carried on by one of its shareholders,

• •

IJNION v. ATIC INDUSTRIES. 933

namely Atul , Products Ltd., even though the share-holding of such shareholder may be 50 per cent. Secondly, Atul Products Ltd. is a wholtsale buyer of the dyes manufactured by the assessee but even then, since the transactions between them are .as principal to principal~ it is difficult to appreciate howl:he assessee could be said by virtue of that Circumstan_ce to have any interest, direct or indirect, in the business of Atul Products Ltd.

The assessee is not concerned whether Atul Products Ltd. sells or does not sell the dyes purchased by it from the asscssee nor is it concerned whether Atul Products Ltd. sells such dy<s at a profit or at a loss.

[939 C-F]

(ii) Perhapsthe position in regard to Crescent Dyes and Chemicclls Ltd. is much stronger than that in regard to Atul Pro!=lucts Ltd.

Crescent Dyes and Chernjpals Ltd. is not even a shareholder of the assessee and it has therefore no interest direct or indirect in the business of' the assessee.

Equally, the assessee has .no interest, direct or indirect in the business of Crescent Dyes . and Chemicals Ltd., Which i:; just a , wh0Iesalc dealer purchasing dyes from the asscssee in wholesale on principal to principal basi&.

[939 G-H]

(iii) The first pat of the definition of related persons inclause

(c) of Sub-section

(4) of section 4 of the amended Act is therefore clearly not satisfif; d both in. relations to Atul Products Ltd. as also in relation to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. and neither of them can be said to be a "related person" vis-a-vis the assesseee within 'the 1neaning of the definition of that term in clause. (c) of subsection (4) ·of sec. 4 of _the amended Act. Therefore, the assessable value of the dyes: manufactured by the assessee cannot be determined with reference to the. selling price charged b)'.

Atul Products Lid. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. to their \)ruchases but must be determined on the basis of the wholesale cash price charged by. the ass0sset;' to Atul Products Ltd. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltcl. The demand made by the Asstt. Collector for differential duty mu;:; t therefore be held to be i; ightly quashed by the High Court. [940 D-F]

(4) Th~ High Court was not right in giving direction to the Revenue to pay costs inCurred by thS assessee in conneCtion with the bank. guarantee furnished by the assessee. The bank guarantee was required to be furnished by the assessee as a condition of"grant of' interim !tay of enforcement of the demand for differential duty and if it is u.ltimately found i:hat the demand for differential duty was not justified, 'the bank guarantee would certainly have to be discharged. But, it is difficult to see how the costs of furnishing the bank guarantee could be directed to be paid by the Revenue to the as.sessee. This direction of the High Court which directs the revenue to pay to the assessee the costs in conn'ection with the bank guarantee furnished by "it in pursuance of the.interim order of the High Court is set aside.

[940 H; 941 A-BJ

934 '

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 s.c.!l..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 3.260 df 1979

From the Judgment and Order dated the 22/23rd day of February, 1972 of the Grjarat High Court in Sp!. Civil Appln. No. 52/77. .

R.N. Poddar for the Appellants.

• N.A. Palkhivala, Atul Setalved, F.H.J.

Talyar Khan,

Ravindar Narain, Kamal Mehta, A. Manjra, T, M. Ansari and Miss Rainu Walia for the Respondc; nts ..

The Judgment of of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI, J.

This appeal by certificate granted under Articles 132 and 133 (I) of the Constitution raises a short question relating to the applicability of the definition of "related person" contained in clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Central Exeise and Salt Act, I 944 as it stood after its amendment by section 2 of Ceniral Act 22 Of 1973 which came into force with effect from !st O_ctober, 1975. The facts giving rise to t4is appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows :

The assessee is a limited company engaged in.the business of manufacturing dyes and it has its factory situate in Atul near Bulsar in the State of Gujarat. The share capital of the assessee is held by two limited companies ; Atul products Limited holds 50 per cent of the share capital while the remaining 50 pe~ cent of the share capital is held by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, London. The assessee at all material tin'les sold the large bulk of dyes manufactured by it in wholesale to Atul products . Limited and Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Limited at a uniform price applic.able alike to both these wholesale buyes and these wliolesale buyers in their turn sold the dyes purchased by them from the assessee to dealers as well as consumers. Now, until 13th March 1978, Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Limited was a subsidiary company wholly owned by Imperial _Chemical Industries Limited, London. But, in pursuance of the policy of the .

Government of India requiring that not more than 40 per cent of the share capital o, f an Indian company should be held by a foreign share-holder, 60 pr cent of the share capital of Imperil Chemical .

Industries (India) Priv'ate Limited was offered to the upblic, with

_,.•

UNiON v. Alic INDUSTRIES (Bhagwati, J.) 935

.the result that since 13th March, 1978 ouly 40 per cent of the share capital of Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Limited was held by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Londqn and

60 per cent came to be held by Indian citizens and. Imperial Chemical Industries <India) Private Limited ceased to be a subsidiary 'company wholly owned by the Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, London. Consequent upon this dilution of freign share holding, the name of Imperial Chemkal Industries (India) Private Limited was changed to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. Atul

Products Limited and Crescent Dyes ati.d Chemicals . Limited contjnued'to he the wholesale dealers of the dyesmanufactured by the assessee throughout the relevant period with which we are concerned in this appeal. It was common ground between the parties that the transactions between the assessee on the one hand and Atul Products Umited. and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited o.n the other were as principal to principal and the wholesale price charged by the assessee to. Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited was the sole consideration for the sale and no extracommerciai considerations entered in the deterimation of such price. Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited, of course, sold the dyes purchased by them from the assessee at a higher price which inter alia included the .expenses incurred by them as also their profit.

. On 15th Sept;:mber, 1975 the assessee submitted a price list s)lowing the assessable value of the dyes manufactured by it on the basis of the wholesale price charged by it to Atul Products

Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. The Superin tendent of Central Excise demanded certain information from the assessee with a view to satisfying himself as regardi the correctness of the price list submitted by the assessee and the requisite in formation was furnished by the assessee by its letter >dated 23rd September, 1975. Thereafter correspondence ensued between the assessee on the one hand alld the Superinteudent of Central Excise on the other and ultimately on 29th October, 1975 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise approved the price list submitted by the assessee. The assessee thereafter went on clearing the dyes manufacthred by it after payment of excise duty OJ} the basis of the price list submitted by the assessee and appr.oved by the Assistant Collector. Then again some further correspondence took place between the assessee an.d the Central Excise Authorities by which c; erta, in information dmanded by the Central Excise Authoritie~

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1984] 3 S.C.R.

was supplied by the assessee.

Tl:ie Superintendent of Central Excise, however, issued a no' ice to the asscc.see an 3bt July, 1976 calling upon the '!lssessee to show eause why the .earlier descision of the Assistant Cllector approving the price list should not be reviewed on the ground that the assessee on the one hand and Autal Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited on the other were '.'related persons" and the assessable value of the dyes manufactured by the assessee was, therefore, liable to be calculated on the basis of the price at which Atul Products Limited and Cre.scent Dyes and Chemicals Limited sold th~ dyes to the ' dealers and the 7onsunters. The assessee was required to show cause why the differential duty worke<I out on the basis of the selling price charged by Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Lhrited should not be recovered from the assessee with .effect from ·!st October, 1975. The assessee in its reply dated 31st August 1976 raised several contentions in answer to the show cause notice and pointed out inter alia that the assesseeon the one band and Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited on the other were noi "related persons" within the meaning of the definition of that term contained i'n sub-clause

(c) of sub-secfon (4) of section 4 of the amended Central Excise 'and Sait Act, 1944 .. The Assistant Collector was, however, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assesee and be ultimately by an order dated !Otb December, 1976 reviewed his earlier.order of approval of the price list and confirmed the demand differentjal duty with retrospectlve effect from !st October, 1975. and directed the assessee to file a fresh price list on the basis of the selling price charged oy Atul Products Limited and ere.scent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. The demand for differential duty computed by the Superintendent of Central Excise for the period from !st October, 1975 to 31st December, 1976 came to an .aggregate amount of _ Rs. 1, 17)7 ,737,65. The asses see thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the validity of the demand made by the Assistant Collector and in the meanwhile also perferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal of the assessee withol)t ex?mining ihe merits of the grounds raised by the assessee since be took the view that all these grounds would be decided in the writ petition pending before the High Court and no useful purpose would be served by bis consideri'nll the self-same 'grounds.

UNiON v. ATIIC INDUSTRIES (Bhagwati, J.) 937

The assessee urged several grounds in support or the writ petition before the. High. Court but it is not ecessary to refer to them in detail, because the High Court ultimately <; lecided the writ . petition in favom of the assessee only on two grounds and it will, therefore, be enough if we refer to those two.grounds alone and consider whether the decision of the High Court is correct in so for as it decided those two grounds in favour of the assessee. The first ground was that the concept of "related person" occurring in clause (cl of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the amended Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was outside the legislative compe•ence

of Parliament under Article 246 read with Entry 84 in the Union List and was, therefore, unconstitutional and' void. This .ground

found favour with the High Court in view of the earlier \lecision given by the same Bench on 20/21 February, 1979 in Special Civil Appjication No. 1.19 of 1976. But, this decision of the High Court striking down clause (c). of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the amended Act cannot stand in view of the decision of the Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited(') where an Identical challenge to the consiitutional validity of the definition of the term "related person" was negatived by this Court. The definition of the term "relatedperson'' was read down and it was held by this Court that "On a proper interpretation of the definition of "related person" in s.ub-section (4) (c) of section 4 the words • "ralative and a distributor of the asssesee" do not refer to any distributor but they ate limited only to a distributor who is .. a selative of the assessee within the meaning of the Companies Act,

1956. So read, the definition of"related person" .is. not unduly wide and does not suffer from any constitntional infirmity. It is within the legislative· competence of Parliaent. The decision of the High Court holding that "the concept of. related person occurring in amende<j section 4 is v/tra vires the legislative competence of P.arliament under Ariicle 246. read with Entry 84 in the Union List" and striking down clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 as also the expression "the buyer is not a related person and"· in clause (a) of sub-section (I) of section 4 and proviso

(iii) to that clause must consequently be set aside and it must be held that these provisions are constitutionally valid.

• The second ground on which the assessee assailed the validity of the demand made by the Assistant Collector for difrerential duty

{I) [1984) I S.C.C. 467,

, .G

SUPREME COURT' RH ORTS [19841 3 s.c.R.

related to applicability of the definition of "rel.ated person" in clause

(c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the amended Act. The Assistant Collector took th c 'icw tht tbe acselsee on the one hand and Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals lirrited on the other were.related persons whhhin the meanirg of the first .Part of the definition of the term "related person" and the assessable vlue

of the dyes manufactured by the assessee for the purpose of excise duty was, therefore, liable to be determined with reference to the . price' at which the dyes were ordinarily sold by Attul Products

Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals limited. This veiw taken by the Assistant Collector was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the . assessee on the one hand and Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dves and Chemicals limited on the other were not "related person~·· and the wholesale cash price charged by the assessee to Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals .limited and not the price at which the latter sold the dyes to the dealers or the consumers, represented the true measure of the value of the dyes for the purpose of chargeability to excise duty. This conclusion reached by the High Coµrt was assailed . before us by the learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Revenue. }le fairly conceded that the only part of the definition of "relited person" in clause (c) of sub-section (4) o section 4 on which h; could rely was the first part which defines "related person" to mean "a person who is, so associated with the

assesse~ that they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other." The secoi; d part of the dejlnition which adds an inclusive clause wrs admittedly not applicable, because neither Atul Products Limited nor Crescent Dyes and Chemicals limited . was a holding companyor a subsidiary company nor was either of them a relative of the assessee, so as to fall within the second part of the definition. But we do not ibink that even the limited contention urged by be learned Attorney General on behalf of the Revenue based on the first pa•t of the definition can suceed.

What .the firi; t part of the definition requires is that the person who is sought to be branded as a '"related persqn" 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 assesse bas an. interest, direct, or indirect in the business of the gerson alieged to be a related person nor. is it eno11£h that the person alleged to b.e a related person has an interest, direct or indirect, in the business of the assesee. It is esential to attract the applicability of the first part of the definition that the .asswee

and the person alleged to be a rdated person must haw interest,

, ' .

ljNION v. AllG lNDUSlRIES (Bhagwati, J.) 939

direct or .indirect, in the business of each other. Each of them miist have a direct or inciirect interest in the business of the other, The equality and degree of interest which each has. in the bussiness of the other may be different: the interest of one in the business of !he other may be direet, while the interest of the latter ii) the business of the formel' may be indirect. That would not make any difference, so long as each has got some interest, direct or indirect, in the business of the other. Now, in the present case, Atul. Products Limited ha.s undoubtedly interest in the busine'8 of the assessee, since Atul Products Limited holds 50 per .cent of the share capital of the .assesse and has .interest as shareholder in the biisiness carried on by the assessee .. But it is not possible to say that the . assessee has any interest in the business of. Atul Products Limited. 'J; here are two points of view from which the relationship between the assessee and Atul Products Limited may be considered. First, it may be noted that Atul Products Limited is a shareholder of the '

assessee to the exterit of 50 per. cent of the share capital. But we : fail to see how it can be said that a limited company has any \intere!; t, direct or indirect, in. the business carried on by one of its . shareholders, even though the shareholding of such shareholder may be 50 per cent. Secondly, Atul Products Limited is a wholesale buyer of the dyes manufactured by the assessee but even. then, • since the transactions between them are principal to principal, it is difficult to appreciate how the assessee could be said by virtue of th.at cricumstance to 'have any interest, direc' .Or indirect, in the.

business of Atul Products Limited. Atul Produets Limited buys dyes from the assessee in wholesale on principal to principal basis and then sells such dyes in the market. The. assessee is not concerned whether Atul Products Limited 'ells or does not sell the .. dyes purchased by i.t from th~ assess.ee nor is. it concerned whether_

Atul Pr.oducts .Limited sells such dyes at a loss. It is impossible to contend that the ass.ess.ee has any direct or indirect interest in th.e business of a wholesale dealer who purchases dyes from .it on principalto principal basis. The same position obtains iri regard to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. Perhaps the position in regard to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited is much stronger ·

then that in regard fo Atul Products Limited. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited is not even a shareholder of the assessee and it hl!S, therefore, no interest dfrect or indirect in the bussiness of the assessee. It is Imperial Chemical . Industries Limited, Londo!) which holds 50 rer cent qf the sh?Je capitel of the assessee and this foreign company aim holds 40 per cent of the. share capital of

' . :;,_.-, G

.ff

• •

. a


[1984] 3 S.C.R. .

Crescent . Chemicals and Dyes Limited. Imperial . Chemicals .· ..

Industries Limited, London would admittedly have an interest in tl)e business of the assessee in its capacity as a shareholder, but how. can Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited of which 40 per cent of the shares are held by Imperial Chemical Industries Limite<l; London which in_ its turn is a shareholder of the assessee, can not.be ' said to have any interest, direct or indirect, in' the business of the

assessye. Equally the assessee has no. interest diiect or indirect in the business of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited, which is just a wholesale dealer purchasing ayes from the asses see in wholesale on principal t.o principal basis. It is obvfous that fr the same . 'reason's which have prevailed with tis while discussing _the case of

Atul. Products Limited, the assessce has no _direct ot indirect interest in the business of' Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Liniited. The first , part of the definiiion of. related person in clause (c) of sub-section . (4) of section 4 Of the ame11ded Act is, therefore, clearly not

satisfied both in relation to Atul Products Limited as . also in relation to Crescet;1t - Dyes and Chemicals Limited and neither of them can be said i:o be a "related person" vis-a-vis the assessee within the meaning of the definition of that term in clause (c) of iub-scction (4). of section 4 of the amended Act. We, therefore, affirm the view iaken. by the High Court and hold that the assessable value of the dyes manufactured by tb, e assessee cannot be determined with reference to the selling price charged by . Atul Products.

Limited and CresQ'ent Dyes and Chemicals Limited to thei~ purchasers but must be determined.on.the basis of the wholesable

ca.sh price cllarged by the assessee to Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes aud Chemicals Limited. 'Th.e demand made by the .

Assistant Collector for differential duty must, therefore, l)e held to be rightly quashed by the High Court.. ·

But there is one small matter on which the High Curt. has, in our. view, erred in giving .direction and iti.s in regard to payment of de costs incurred by . the assessee in connection with the bank guarantee furnished by it in pursuance of the interim order made by the High Court. We do not think the High Court was Fight in giving this direction. The bank. guarantee was required to be fitrnished by the assessee as a condltlon of grant .of interim stay of enforcement of the . demand. for differential duty and if it .is ultimately foun<; I that the 4emand for differntial duty was not

' .·.

• • .. . . . . . .

UNION v. ATIC INDUSTRIES (Bhagwati, J.) 941

justified, the bank guaraniee would certainly have to be dfacharged, A • but it is difficulty to see .how the costs of furnishing the bank , guarantee could be directed to be paid by. the Revenue. to the assessee. We would, therefore, set aside that part of the otder made by the High Court which directs the Revenue to pay 'to the

~ l\ssessee the costs incurred in conection with the bank guarantee furnishid by it in pursuance of the interrn order of the High

. B Court.·

The appeal, therefore, fails except in"regard to the direction •for payment of costs of the bank guarantee. The Revenue will pay the costs of the appeal to the assessee.

S.R.

A]Jpeal dismissed

'·