SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, S. RANGANATHAN AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.
M/s. Hindustan Polymers, Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos.5339-41 of 1986 with 4176-77 of 1984, D/- 23-8-1989.
WITH
M/s. Hindustan Polymers, Visakhapatnam, Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Guntur and others, Respondents
Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 – Section 35, 4, 2 – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Section 2, 3 – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Factory- Styrene Monomer manufactured - Appellant is a division of Mc Dowell & has its factory at, inter alia, Visakhapatnam manufactures and sells fusel oil/Styrene Monomer falling under Tariff Item Schedule to appellant is that said fusel oil is a completely manufactured article and after completion of its manufacture it is stored in storage tanks, duly approved for this purpose – It is at this stage that quantity of fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer manufactured, according to appellant is entered in RG-1 Register maintained for goods manufactured by appellant – It is also case of appellant that fusel oil/Styrene Monomer manufactured by it is sold in bulk and delivered to customers at appellants factory Styrene Monomer is also capable of being supplied in road-tankers to customers – Held, Learned Brothers Mukharji, J. and Ranganathan, J. both of whom have arrived at same conclusion – My conclusion also is same However, I append this short note only, to emphasize that in my opinion also the view taken by all of us on construction of alone sufficient present matters to support conclusion we have reached and it does not appear necessary to consider the wider propositions canvassed by two sides cost of such packing" incurred by manufacturer and recovered from the buyer except where the packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to manufacturer does not include within its ambit cost of packing not incurred by manufacturer when the packing is supplied by the buyer and not the manufacturer construction of expression "cost of such packing" in clearly excludes in these matters question of its addition to the price of goods recovered by the manufacturer from the buyer for determining the "value" in relation to excisable goods for computing duty payable on it – Appeals allowed.
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- These appeals under Section 35L (b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) are against the orders Nos. 450-452 of 1985 A dated 4th July, 1985, 473/184A and 474/84A both dated 21st June, 1984 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2. The appellant is a division of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. It has its factory at, inter alia, Visakhapatnam. There it manufactures and sells fusel oil/Styrene Monomer falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the 1st Schedule to the Act. The case of the appellant is that the said fusel oil is a completely manufactured article and after completion of its manufacture, it is stored in storage tanks, duly approved for this purpose. It is at this stage that the quantity of fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer manufactured, according to the appellant, is entered in the RG-1 Register maintained for goods manufactured by the appellant. It is also the case of the appellant that the said fusel oil/Styrene Monomer manufactured by it is sold in bulk and delivered to the customers at the appellants factory. The fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer is also capable of being supplied in road-tankers to customers. The appellant had filed its price-lists in respect of the same. In the said price-lists, which were duly approved by the Asstt. Collector, the appellant had shown the value of fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer at the rate at which those were sold in wholesale as "Naked Ex-Works and in bulk". According to the appellant, the manufacture of fusel oil is complete and it is the fully manufactured fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer which is stored in the storage tank.
3. On 2nd July, 1983, a notice in respect of a consignment was issued to show cause as to why value of the drums should not be included in the value of the goods. There the drums had been supplied by the buyer. Another show cause notice as to why value of the drums should not be included in the assessable value of the goods was issued to the appellant on the 5th April, 1983 pertaining to Gate Pass No. 773 whereunder the appellant had cleared 2.4 K1 of fusel oil in drums supplied by the buyer. Replies were duly filed to the said show cause notices by the appellant contending, inter alia, that as the drums were supplied by the buyer, value thereof could not be included in the assessable value. On the 11th August, 1983, two orders were passed by the Assistant Collector - one in relation to each of the aforesaid show cause notices. The Assistant Collector included the value of the drums in the assessable value of the said fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer. Appeals were filed by the assessee. The same were allowed by the Collector (Appeals). He held that the appellant had not collected any amount in excess of the amount indicated in the price-lists. Therefore, in addition to this amount, according to the Collector (Appeals), it was not open to the Asstt. Collector to inflate the assessable value without establishing the receipt of the additional consideration by the appellant apart from what had been shown in the invoice. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that at the time of removal the goods were delivered from the factory in packed condition and the containers were not returnable by the buyer, therefore, the value had to be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the revenues contention and restored the order of the Asstt. Collector. Aggrieved therefrom, the appellant has come up in these appeals to this Court.
4. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Salve contended that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the admitted factual position that the fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer manufactured by the appellant is sold in bulk and is capable of bring so sold. Hence, according to the appellant, it is not necessary for the said fusel oil/ Styrene Monomer to be supplied to the customers in drums in the aforesaid situation. The Tribunal,
relied on : Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay v. CCE
referred to : K. Radha Krishnaiah v. Inspector of central Excise, Gooty
Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of central Excise
relied on : Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.
Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.