Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-30-1988
Reported in : (1989)(21)LC297Tri(Delhi)
..... revenue in the case of air 1923 bombay 305, the definition of interest was given in the context of bombay municipal act and this could not be relied upon for proceedings under the customs act.19. the points forxxmsideration are whether in terms of new section 4 icim and icil can be considered as related ..... 10 and 10a of the rules, this court further held in sanjana's case supra following the decision in gursahai saigal v. commissioner of income-tax, punjab (1963 3 scr 893) that in calculating the period of limitation, the expression paid in rule 10 should not be literally construed as 'actually paid ..... do not refer to any distributor but they are limited only to a distributor who is a relative of the assessee within the meaning of the companies act, 1956. so read, the definition of 'related person' is unduly wide and does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. it is within the legislative ..... declared by m/s. television factory, a price agreed upon between them and ecil, is not an acceptable price under section 4 of the customs act, and that the only acceptable price for assessment is the price at which the tv receiver sets are sold to independent customers by ecil. the ..... any sub-distributor of such distributor. explanation. - in this clause "holding company", "subsidiary company" and "relative" have the same meanings as in the companies act, 1956; (i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the .....Tag this Judgment!