1988 (7) TMI 58 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court clarifies assessable value calculation for Oxygen & acetylene under Central Excises Act

INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CE.

The Supreme Court of India, in a case under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, addressed the inclusion of additional charges in the assessable value ... Whether Delivery and collection charges (where applicable), Cylinder deposit and Rentals being additional charges, should form part of the assessable value? Held that:- In view of the conduct of the dealer, there was doubt as to what was the real ex-factory price. If there was a finding that there was no real ex-factory price, then the aforesaid observations would have required serious examination. But in this case, the case has not proceeded on that basis. On the contrary, there is a clear finding that there was an ex-factory price which is ascertainable. If once that is the position that should be the basis upon which the value is to be determined, the other expenses, costs or charges must be excluded. Inasmuch as that is the correct position in law, we direct that the Assistant Collector will re-fix the assessable value as indicated in this judgment. The Tribunal's judgment is modified accordingly. These appeals are disposed of. Issues:- Assessment of assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.- Inclusion of additional charges in the assessable value.- Determination of value under Section 4 of the Act.- Application of principles from previous judgments in determining assessable value.Analysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court of India, delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji J., pertains to appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer of compressed Oxygen and dissolved acetylene, received show-cause notices regarding the approval of price lists for their products. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the prices charged by the appellant at their depots and service centers compared to the approved price list, leading to a dispute with the revenue department regarding the inclusion of additional charges like delivery and collection charges, cylinder deposit, and rentals in the assessable value.The department contended that these additional charges should form part of the assessable value. The Tribunal observed that the assessable value should be based on the price at the factory gate, and any transportation charges incurred should not be added to the wholesale price at the factory gate for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to re-fix the assessable value based on the principles outlined in the judgment.The judgment emphasized the importance of determining the assessable value in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. It reiterated that the value of excisable goods should be based on the normal price at which the goods are ordinarily sold in wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the principle that once the ex-factory price is ascertainable, other expenses or charges must be excluded from the assessable value.The counsel for the respondent highlighted specific observations from previous judgments regarding the inclusion of various expenses in the value of excisable goods. However, the Court clarified that in the present case, there was a clear finding of an ascertainable ex-factory price, which should be the basis for determining the assessable value. Accordingly, the Court directed the Assistant Collector to re-fix the assessable value in line with the judgment, modifying the Tribunal's decision. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.