Cement freight valuation under control order turns on contract and whether lorry freight forms part of sale consideration.

The Cement Control Order, 1967 was read as governing freight only for the cheapest mode of transport, ordinarily rail, because the scheme contemplates a free-on-rail price and reimbursement of freight incurred for that mode. Differential freight for cement despatched by lorry was not, by that order alone, required to be included in taxable turnover. Whether the extra lorry freight formed part of the sale consideration depended on the contract and the factual nature of the collection, including whether it was a post-sale charge. The earlier rejection was based on an overly broad reading of Supreme Court authority, and the issue required fresh factual examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the differential freight charges collected for cement despatched by lorry, over and above the railway freight component reflected in the invoice, were includible in the taxable turnover under the Cement Control Order, 1967.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Cement Control Order, 1967 was examined to determine the scope of the producer's obligation regarding freight. The control order and the Supreme Court's earlier ruling on cement freight were held to govern the freight attributable to the cheapest mode of transport, ordinarily rail, because the scheme contemplates realization of the free-on-rail price and reimbursement of freight incurred by the producer for that mode. The Court distinguished that scheme from lorry transport, holding that the control order does not itself require the producer to bear or recover freight for a costlier mode of transport. For lorry despatches, inclusion of the additional freight in turnover was held to depend on the contractual arrangement and the factual position as to whether the amount formed part of the sale consideration or was merely a post-sale charge. The Tribunal had not examined those factual issues because it had rejected the claim at the threshold on an erroneous reading of the earlier Supreme Court decision.

Conclusion: The Cement Control Order did not, by itself, compel inclusion of differential lorry freight in turnover, and the matter required fresh factual determination on contractual terms and the nature of the collection.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory freight regime under the Cement Control Order applies to freight of the cheapest mode of transport, while liability to tax on additional freight for a costlier mode depends on the contract and proof that the amount formed part of the sale consideration.

---