Assessable value includes buyer-recovered die-cast cost; residuary recovery rule upheld for the excise demand.

Cost of die-cast recovered from customers and later appropriated was treated as part of the consideration for aluminium extrusions, so it formed part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, both before and after the 1-10-1975 amendment. For the later period, the normal price was not limited to the extrusion price alone because the manufacturer also received an additional amount from the buyer. For the earlier period, the wholesale cash price of goods capable of sale was taken to include the die-cast cost where the buyer bore that cost and the goods were marketed on that basis. The demand was also maintainable under Rule 10A as the residuary recovery provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cost of die-cast recovered from customers and later appropriated was includible in the assessable value of aluminium extrusions under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, both before and after the amendment effective from 1-10-1975; (ii) Whether the demand was validly raised under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the cost of die-cast recovered from customers and later appropriated was includible in the assessable value of aluminium extrusions under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, both before and after the amendment effective from 1-10-1975.

Analysis: The recovered amount for special dies was treated as part of the consideration received from buyers. For the period after amendment, the normal price was not confined to the price of the extrusions alone, because the manufacturer was also receiving an additional amount from the customer. For the earlier period, the wholesale cash price of goods capable of sale was taken to include the die-cast cost where the buyer bore that cost and the goods were in fact marketed on that basis.

Conclusion: The cost of die-cast was includible in the assessable value under both the amended and unamended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was validly raised under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 10A was treated as the residuary recovery provision for sums due where no specific rule applied. As the price list did not disclose the recovery of die-cast cost, the case was held not to be confined to Rule 10, and Rule 10A was held applicable for raising the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was validly raised under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the assessable value rightly included the die-cast cost and the demand was maintainable under the residuary recovery rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufacturer receives from buyers an additional amount linked to the supply transaction, that amount forms part of the assessable value; and where no specific recovery provision applies, the residuary demand provision may be invoked.

---