Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PUROLATOR INDIA LTD.

Decided
2 May 1989
Judges listed
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 871 · 1989 INSC 171

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SABYASACHI MUKHAR.JI, J. 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 30th May, 1986.

p. 872, margin A

It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notices 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 submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16th April, 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-

p. 872, margin B

alia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons. A reply was given on 10th September, 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 28th January, 1981. These show cause notices were challenged and the High Court quashed the said notices. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed.

p. 872, margin C

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.

p. 872, margin E

In view of the principles indicated in the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 859 and the facts adduced before the High Court, the High Court's judgment cannot be interfered. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 872, margin F