JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.—(Concurring with Venkatachaliah, J.) :- I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned brother Venkatachaliah, J. I respectfully agree with him. There is, however, one aspect of the matter in respect of which I would like to say a few words. Contention (e) as noted by my learned brother in his judgment deals with the determination of the assessable-value. The processors in the cases before us say that they have filed classification lists under R. 173-B of the Central Excises and Salt Rules. 1944, as they had no other choice and that if the proper principles of determination of the assessable-value do not legally justify the consequences flowing from the classification it is open to them to contend against the validity of the determination and they are not estopped from doing so. The processors are right in contending that the true principle should be followed in determining the assessable-value. Then what is the true principle ? Section 4 of the Act deals with the valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act stipulates that the value should be, subject to other provisions of the section, the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removai, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. For the present purpose. we are not concerned with the provisos nor the situation where the normal price of goods is not ascertainable for any reason.

2. In Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India, 1985 Suppl (1) SCR 292 it was held that where for the purpose of calculating assessable value, a notional sum is laid down by the legislature to be arrived at on a certain basis, it is not permissible for the Courts to engraft into it any other deduction or allowance or addition or read it down on the score that unless the said deduction or allowance or addition is authorised elsewhere in the Act or in the Rules. A statutory charge should be measured by the method of its own computation as laid down in the statute and not by any other method of computation. The circumstances that thereby the benefit of any exemption granted by the legislation may be lost and that in some cases hardship might result are not matters which would influence Courts on the construction of the statute. A tax payer is entitled only to such benefit as is granted by the legislature. It was emphasised that the taxation under the Act is the rule and the benefit and exemption, the exception. And it was held that there was no hardship in these cases. It was further reiterated that when the textile fabrics are subjected to the processes like bleaching, dyeing and printing etc. by independent processes, whether on their own account or on job charges basis, the value for the purposes of assessment under S. 4 of the Central Excise Act will not be the processing charge alone but the intrinsic value of the processed fabrics which is the price at which such fabrics are sold for the first time in the wholesale market. That is the effect of S. 4 of the Act. The value would naturally include the value of grey fabrics supplied to the independent processors for the processing. However, excise duty, if any, paid on the grey fabrics will be given pro forma credit to the independent processors to be utilised for the payment on the processed fabrics in accordance with the relevant rules.

3. In M/s. Ujagar Prints v. Union of India 1980 (Suppl) SCC 652. Bhagwati. C.J. held that the processes of bleaching dyeing, printing, mercerising etc. carried oil by a processor on job-work basis in respect of grey cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics belonging to the customer and entrusted by him for processing amount to manufacture within the meaning of the Act prior to its amendment so