Approved excise price lists cannot be reopened to deny transport charge deductions where freight is treated as equalised freight.

Approved excise price lists could not be reopened to disallow transport charges on the premise that the freight was equalised freight. The Court held that, on the facts, transport charges were deductible whether reflected as average freight or actual transportation cost, and that the approval mechanism under Rule 173C gave finality to the accepted price list for the issue then determined. The respondents' attempt to invoke Rule 173C(3) to require fresh price lists without that deduction was unsustainable. The impugned order and consequential letters were quashed, and enforcement of the disallowance direction was restrained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise authorities could reopen an already approved price list so as to disallow deduction of transport charges on the footing that the freight was equalised freight, and whether the impugned order and consequential letters directing fresh price lists without such deduction were sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation under the excise price-list procedure. The Court held that transport charges, whether shown as average freight or actual cost of transportation, were deductible on the facts, and that once the price list had been approved the authorities could not reopen the determination merely by invoking Rule 173C(3) on the assumption that the freight was equalised freight. The Court distinguished the cited authority relied on by the respondents and treated the approval mechanism under Rule 173C as conferring finality on the accepted price list for the purpose then in issue.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in relation to transport charges. The impugned order and the consequential letters were quashed, and the respondents were restrained from enforcing the direction disallowing the deduction.

---