Cum-duty valuation uses only the effective excise duty after exemption, and the Tribunal will not examine the amendment's vires.

For determining assessable value from a cum-duty price, the deductible duty element is limited to the actual effective duty payable after giving effect to the exemption under Notification No. 198/76-CE; the higher notional duty that would have applied without the exemption cannot be deducted, and the issue was decided against the assessee. The retrospective clarification introduced by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 was treated as binding on the valuation exercise, and the Tribunal held that it could not entertain a challenge to the vires of the statutory amendment under the excise law governing its jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, for determining assessable value from the cum-duty price, the deduction had to be limited to the actual effective duty paid after giving effect to the exemption under Notification No. 198/76-CE; (ii) whether the challenge to the retrospective amendment made by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 could be entertained by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): whether, for determining assessable value from the cum-duty price, the deduction had to be limited to the actual effective duty paid after giving effect to the exemption under Notification No. 198/76-CE.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as amended retrospectively by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982, clarified that the duty deductible from the cum-duty price is the effective duty actually payable on the goods after taking into account the exemption available. The concession under Notification No. 198/76-CE therefore reduced the duty element deductible from the gross price.

Conclusion: The deduction had to be confined to the actual effective duty, and not to the higher duty that would have been payable without the exemption; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the challenge to the retrospective amendment made by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 could be entertained by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated itself as bound to interpret and apply the law enacted under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and held that it could not examine the vires of a statutory provision creating its own jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The vires challenge was not entertained by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in light of the retrospective clarification governing deduction of duty from cum-duty price, and the Tribunal declined to go into the constitutional validity of the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a retrospective amendment to the excise law clarifies the duty element in a cum-duty price, the deductible amount is the actual effective duty payable after exemption, and the Tribunal cannot examine the vires of the statute under which it functions.

---