Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the higher sugar price permitted by interim court orders could be treated as a price fixed under law so as to exclude the differential duty demand.
Analysis: Section 4 valued excisable goods by reference to the normal price, and its proviso covered cases where goods were sold at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force. The dispute arose because the manufacturer had cleared sugar at a higher price permitted by interim orders, while duty was paid only on the notified Government price. The interim orders, though provisional, operated to permit sale at the higher price and thus constituted a price fixed under law within the meaning of the proviso. The reliance on the Board circular was found misplaced because the circular concerned a different context.
Conclusion: The higher price allowed by the interim orders was a price fixed under law for purposes of Section 4, and the differential duty demand was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the Tribunal was incorrect, and the Revenue was entitled to recover duty on the higher price basis.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, a price permitted by a judicial interim order can qualify as a price fixed under law within the proviso to Section 4, and duty is chargeable on that basis.