SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) M /s Hind Lamps Ltd., the petitioner, is a public limited incorporated in 1951. It carried on the business of manufacture and sale of electric bulbs, fluorescent bulbs, miniature bulbs and their components at its factory at Sikohabad. The entire share holding of the petitioner company is held by six Ltd. companies. Of these four are foreign companies incorporated in England and Netherland and two are companies incorporated in India. Since its very inception the petitioner company has long term agreements with six other companies which have been described in the Counter Affidavit as subsidiary companies of the six Companies which are share holders in the petitioner company. The bulbs and fluorescent tubes etc. manufactured by the petitioner company are branded by the petitioners with the trademarks like 'PHILIPS', 'OSARAM', 'MAZDA', 'CROMPTION', 'BAJAJ' and 'KLEER -TON', under which names the customer companies sell these goods. The Petitioner Co. sells the goods manufactured by it to the customer Companies at its ex -factory price. The petitioner company pays Sales Tax on these sales. The price charged by the petitioner company includes manufacturing cost and manufacturers' profit. The petitioner Co. pays Income Tax on its profits from these sales.
(2.) IN their turn, the customer companies sell the bulbs, tubes etc. to the public at rates higher than those charged by the petitioner company. The customer companies include their selling cost and selling profits. In 1955 excise duty was for the first time imposed on the bulbs and tubes manufactured by the petitioner company. The duty was levied and collected on 'Specific' basis. With effect from 1st March, 1969, the base of the Excise Duty, was changed to ad valorem. This change was made in(sic) of electric bulb and fluorescent tubes only. The duty on miniature ramps continued to be levied on 'Specific basis',
(3.) SOON after this change the Excise Department asked the petitioner company to supply it the catalogue of its selling price. The petitioner company complied with it. On 4th June, 1969, the Superintendent of Central Excise, required the petitioner Company to send the price list at which the customer Companies were selling the goods manufactured by the petitioner Company. The petitioner filed an objection that the Price charged by it was the Ex -Factory whole -sale Price and that alone was relevant and material for determining the value of the goods for purposes of calculating the Excise Duty. The Superintendent, however, on 14th July, 1969, insisted that the Price List of the customer companies be submitted. The petitioner company accordingly complied with this request on 9th August, 1969. Thereafter, on 16th August, 1969, the Superintendent of Central Excise passed an order directing the petitioner company to pay Excise Duty on the basis that the Price at which the Customer Companies sold the commodities was its whole -sale cash price. The petitioner company accordingly paid the Excise Duty on that basis. It did not challenge the order dated 16th August 1969, either by way of an Appeal, which is permissible under the Central Excise and Salt Act, or by instituting a Writ Petition in this Court.;