Excise valuation follows the manufacturer's wholesale price; a buyer's later resale price does not determine assessable value.

For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, excise duty is computed on the normal wholesale price charged by the manufacturer when the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration. On the admitted facts, the manufacturer sold dry cell batteries to M/s. Peico Limited at a stipulated price, so the buyer's later resale price to its own dealers did not affect assessable value. The writ challenge was also treated as maintainable because the facts were largely admitted, the issue was one of law, and alternative remedies were not considered a bar in the circumstances. The impugned order was quashed and duty was directed to be assessed on the manufacturer's sale price.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty on the dry cell batteries manufactured by the petitioner was to be assessed on the price charged by the petitioner to M/s. Peico Limited or on the higher resale price charged by M/s. Peico Limited to its wholesale dealers; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of final adjudication, appellate and revisional remedies.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty on the dry cell batteries manufactured by the petitioner was to be assessed on the price charged by the petitioner to M/s. Peico Limited or on the higher resale price charged by M/s. Peico Limited to its wholesale dealers.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 adopts the normal price at which excisable goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration. The admitted facts showed that the petitioner manufactured and supplied batteries to M/s. Peico Limited under agreed specifications at a stipulated wholesale price, and that the goods sold by the petitioner were the goods manufactured by it. The fact that the buyer later sold the goods at a higher price did not alter the assessable value. The resale price of the buyer was therefore irrelevant for valuation under the charging provision.

Conclusion: Excise duty was required to be levied on the price charged by the petitioner to M/s. Peico Limited, not on the resale price charged by M/s. Peico Limited to its wholesale dealers.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of final adjudication, appellate and revisional remedies.

Analysis: The challenge was entertained because the material facts were substantially admitted and the controversy raised a question of law fit for writ determination. The interim order reflected a definite departmental view, and the long passage of time made it inappropriate to drive the petitioner to the ordinary statutory hierarchy of remedies. In these circumstances, the existence of alternative remedies did not bar writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the alternative remedy objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to assess excise duty on the petitioner's sale price to M/s. Peico Limited.

Ratio Decidendi: For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, the assessable value is the normal wholesale price charged by the manufacturer to the buyer, and a later resale price obtained by the buyer does not govern valuation where the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.

---