Excise valuation and constitutional validity of Section 4(4) upheld against challenge; packing costs for marketable goods form assessable value.

The constitutional challenge to Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 failed because the provision had already been upheld by the Supreme Court as within Parliament's legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 84 of the Union List. On valuation, secondary packing necessary to make Vanaspati marketable in wholesale trade formed part of the assessable value, so the cost of containers and packing charges could not be excluded from excise duty computation. The writ petition was therefore rejected on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the validity of Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be sustained; (ii) Whether the cost of containers, packing charges, and handling of Vanaspati were liable to be included for excise duty purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the validity of Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be sustained.

Analysis: The validity of sub-section (4) of Section 4 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, which had held that the provision was within Parliament's legislative competence under Article 246 of the Constitution of India read with Entry 84 of the Union List. The constitutional challenge therefore could not survive.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the cost of containers, packing charges, and handling of Vanaspati were liable to be included for excise duty purposes.

Analysis: The governing principle was that secondary packing necessary to make the excisable article marketable and sold in the wholesale market forms part of the assessable value. On that footing, the cost of the container and packing charges could not be excluded from the wholesale cash price at the factory gate.

Conclusion: The cost of containers and packing charges was liable to excise duty and could not be deducted from assessable value.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because both the constitutional challenge and the valuation challenge were covered against the petitioner by binding Supreme Court precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary packing necessary to render the excisable goods marketable forms part of the assessable value for excise duty, and a statutory provision upheld as within legislative competence cannot be struck down on a constitutional challenge.

---