SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Mad) 222

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMANUJAM
Standard Electric Appliances - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Central Excise - Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 6317 of 1973
Decided On : 15 March 1978

Advocates Appeared: For

The assessable value for excise duty should be fixed at the price sold to retail dealers, and quantitative discounts should be allowed only for clearances where the discounts were actually given.

Headnote:

EXCISE DUTY - ASSESSMENT - PRICE LIST - APPROVAL - REVISION - VALIDITY - QUANTITATIVE DISCOUNTS - ALLOWANCE - CONDITIONS - LEGALITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a manufacturer of domestic electrical appliances, submitted a price list to the excise authorities for approval of the assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The authorities initially approved a provisional price list but later revised it, fixing the assessable value at the price at which the petitioner sold the goods to its retail dealers. The petitioner challenged the revision, arguing that the assessable value should be fixed at the price sold to a favored buyer, Philips India Ltd., which purchased large quantities of the goods.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the assessable value should be fixed at the price sold to the retail dealers, as the petitioner had not established that Philips India Ltd. was the sole selling agent and that there was no wholesale market for the goods in question. The court also held that the authorities were justified in allowing quantitative discounts only for clearances where the discounts were actually given, and that the petitioner was liable to pay the difference in duty if the dealers did not purchase the full agreed quantity within the agreed period.

Issues: 1. Whether the assessable value should be fixed at the price sold to a favored buyer or at the price sold to retail dealers. 2. Whether quantitative discounts should be allowed for all clearances or only for clearances where the discounts were actually given.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The assessable value should be fixed at the price sold to retail dealers, as the petitioner had not established that Philips India Ltd. was the sole selling agent and that there was no wholesale market for the goods in question. 2. Quantitative discounts should be allowed only for clearances where the discounts were actually given, as the purchaser is not entitled to the concession if the agreed quantity of goods is not purchased by him during the stipulated period.

Final Decision: The court ordered that the writ petition be allowed in part, modifying the direction given by the second respondent to collect the difference in duty in the event of the purchasers not clearing the goods within the period stipulated. The court directed the petitioners to pay the difference in duty if they had collected the price not at the concessional rate but at the full price at which the goods have been sold to the other customers.

Judgment :-

RAMANUJAM J

The petitioner-firm is a manufacturer of domestic electrical appliances, particularly, water heaters of various sizes. On 1-3-1969, excise duty was introduced on domestic electric appliances. The petitioner submitted a price list on 7-3-1969, as required under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rule made thereunder for approval of the assessable value to the first respondent. At that time the petitioner was having two sets of prices, one applicable to bulk purchasers and another applicable to retail dealers who purchased small quantities. Messrs Philips India Ltd., is the only concern which was buying in large quantities while others were buying in small quantities. The first respondent, however, discarded both the sets of prices and gave a provisional approval on 8-3-1969 at the prices at which Messrs Philips India Ltd. sold the water heaters to small dealers who purchased from them in small quantities. On 26-8-1969, however, the first respondent gave a final approval under Sec. 4(a) accepting the set of prices given by the petitioners applicable to retail dealers. In that letter it was stated that the sale to small retail dealers can be considered as taking place under open market conditions under Sec. 4 (a). As regards the price sold to Philips India Ltd., the first respondent has stated in the said letter that Philips India Ltd., was a favoured buyer and that there cannot be more than one set of prices for excise purposes. Against the said order dated 26-8-1969, of the first respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 26-8-1969.

2.Again on 12-9-1969, the petitioner gave a new price list. The first respondent approved the said price list applicable to retail dealers on 17-8-1969, after rejecting the set of prices applicable to wholesale dealers on the ground that there cannot be more than one set of price for excise purposes. As against the said order also the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent on 25-2-1970.

3.Because of the difference in assessable value as per the provisional approval of the prices dated 8-3-1969 and the final approval dated 26-8-1969, the petitioner made a claim for rebate of the excess amount paid for the clearance during the period 8-3-1969 and 28-8-1969, which came to about Rs. 5, 000/-. However, on 3-1-1970, the first respondentsuo motuissued an order modifying his own final price approval dated 26-8-1969 refixing the assessable price at the set of prices at which Messrs Philips India Ltd. sold the water heaters to small dealers who purchased from them in small quantities. This modification has been made effective from 8-3-1969, the date of the first provisional approval. The first respondent by another order dated 8-1-1970 stated that order dated 3-1-1970, modified also the earlier order dated 17-8-1969. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 26-2-1970, as against the said two orders dated 3-1-1970 and 8-1-1970.

4.On 17-1-1970, the petitioner wrote to the first respondent pointing out that Messrs Philips India Ltd. had already stopped dealing in water heaters and that the last purchase by them was on 14-11-1969 and requesting for refixation of the assessable value on the prices the petitioner sold to the wholesale dealers who buy from them. On 19-1-1970, the first respondent gave a provisional price approval again on the set of prices to the retail dealers who buy small quantities from the petitioner.

5.Towards the end of April, 1970 the petitioner decided to increase the price of water heaters for the first time after the introduction of the excise duty. They offered three sets of prices (1) applicable to small dealers who buy less than 100 pieces in a year or less than 20 pieces at a time; (2) applicable to dealers who buy more than 100 pieces but less than 400 pieces in a year or more than 20 pieces at a time; and (3) applicable to dealers who buy more than 400 pieces in a year or more than 40 p










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top