1989 INSC 0275
                                             Union of India and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             M/S. Purolator India Ltd.

                                      Civil Appeal No. 1491 (NM) of 1988

                                   (S. Ranganathan, Sabyasachi Mukharji JJ)

                                                      02.05.1989

                                                     JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. ­

1. This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No. 859. This is an appeal
from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated May 30, 1986.

2. It appears that in October 1975, Trade Notice were issued on the basis of the directive of the
Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the
manufacturers of the goods. In April 1977, price list was submitted by the respondent declaring the
assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee respondent sold the goods. Thereafter
on April 16, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the
respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods. On August
22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, inter
alia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related person. A reply was given on
September 10, 1977 by the assessee to the aforesaid letter. First notice was issued asking the
assessee to show cause as to why the assessable value be not determined at the price the buyers of
the assessee sold the goods (instead of the price at which the assessee sold the goods to its buyers).
There was a reply and the second show cause notice was issued on January 28, 1981. These show
cause notice were challenged and the High Court quashed the said notices. Aggrieved thereby, this
appeal has been filed.

3. The respondent is a registered company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling
filters. Some of the goods are sold by the respondent to its customers under the respective brand
names. The respondent filed a price list at which price the goods were sold to the customers.

4. In view of the principles indicated in the judgment on Civil Appeal No. 859 (Union of India v.
Playworld Electronics, (1989) 3 SCC 181 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 379) and the facts adduced before the
High Court, the High Court's judgment cannot be interfered with. The appeal, therefore, fails and is
accordingly dismissed.

</html