Brief of the CaseIn the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/S. Detergents India Ltd. & Anr., Supreme Court has held that in case of related party transactions, proviso (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) will not be applicable when there is no “arrangement” between Shaw the related parties to depress a price which is otherwise at arm’s length.
Brief Facts
Detergents India Limited (DIL), now Henkel Marketing India Limited, was at the relevant time a subsidiary of Shaw Wallace and Company Limited. Both were public limited companies. Shaw Wallace’s subsidiary companies held 57% of the paid up share capital of Detergents India Limited, making Detergents India Limited a subsidiary of Shaw Wallace as understood by the definition of “holding company” and “subsidiary company” contained in the Companies Act, 1956. 90% of the manufacturing capacity of Detergents India Limited was to manufacture various products for Hindustan Lever Limited which were then branded with Hindustan Lever names in small packs. A processing charge was paid by Hindustan Lever Limited for this jobwork, and it is clear that different processing charges were paid depending upon the size of the product and the product itself. The excess 10% capacity which was not mopped up by Hindustan Lever was sold to Shaw Wallace, its holding Company. Various other independent manufacturers/sellers also sold the same and similar products to Shaw Wallace and Company.
Various show cause notices were issued alleging that demand of differential duty as the price paid by Shaw Wallace and Company for the purchase of the same/similar products from the other firms/companies was less than the price paid to Detergents India Limited.
Contentions of the Revenue
The Revenue contented that Shaw Wallace and DIL are related persons within the meaning of Section 4(4) (c) of the Act and stated that some of these factors are that
