Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 71
2005(4) Supreme 688
Supreme Court of India
S.N. Variava, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad —Appellant
versus
Videocon International Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3665 of 1999
With
C.A. Nos. 2343-2345 of 2000, 5661 of 2000, 148 of 2002 and 8408-8412 of 2003
Decided on 12-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S/Shri Mohan Parasaran, ASG, A. Subba Rao and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S/Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate, R. Santhana Krishnan, Sateesh Gall, Ms. K. Radha Rani, D. Mahesh Babu, V. Balachandran, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ramesh Singh, Amit Kumar, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Mrinali Chandy and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates.
Headnote:Central Excise—Respondent assessee where paid sales tax, amount of tax was deducted from price of goods—In States where benefit of exemption from tax was available, assessee paid sales tax on price without deducting sales tax element—As price was higher in that State, Department wanted to take that price for sales throughout India—Stand was untenable and was rightly so held by authorities and the Tribunal.
Order
In all these matters the concerned Assessee was only selling its products through their Depots. In some States where the Assessee had to pay sales tax they deducted the sales tax paid from the price of the goods. In States where the Assessee had benefit of exemption from sales tax, they paid sales tax on price without deducing the sales tax element. The Department contended that as the price was higher in that State, that price should be applicable for sales throughout India. Such a stand is clearly untenable.
2. The Assessees, in all these cases have succeeded, and rightly so, before the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The position being so clear it is surprising that a decision to file Civil Appeals was taken. We see no substance in these Appeals. They all stand rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
