1960 (2) TMI 2 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of Central Excise Act Section 4 on Excise Duty Calculation

The court found that both parties misinterpreted Section 4 of the Central Excise Act regarding the method of calculating excise duty on cigarettes. The ... Valuation (Central Excise) Issues Involved:1. Method of Calculation for Excise Duty2. Limitation on Demand Notices3. Violation of Rules of Natural JusticeIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Method of Calculation for Excise Duty:The primary issue revolves around the correct method for calculating the excise duty on cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the wholesale cash price should be the price at which it sells to its stockists in Calcutta. However, the Excise authorities contended that the assessment should be based on the price at which the stockists or agents sell to an independent buyer in an open market.The court clarified that the correct interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act involves three factors: location, time, and method of calculation. The location for determining the wholesale cash price is the factory or nearest place where a wholesale market exists. The time for calculation is when the goods are removed from the factory. The method involves determining the price at which the goods or goods of like kind and quality are sold or capable of being sold in a wholesale market to an independent buyer.The court found that both parties had misinterpreted Section 4. The Excise authorities' principle of using the price at which stockists sell to independent buyers was incorrect as it did not necessarily reflect the wholesale market price at the factory location or nearest wholesale market. The petitioner's method of using the stockist price was also rejected as it did not conform to the requirements of a wholesale market.2. Limitation on Demand Notices:The petitioner raised the issue of limitation concerning the demand notices issued under Rule 10 and Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The court noted that no objection was taken regarding the first notice under Rule 10. However, the petitioner argued that the other two notices were wrongly issued under Rule 10A and should have been issued under Rule 10, making them barred by limitation.The court decided not to address the limitation issue at this stage, given that the assessments were being set aside. The point of limitation was kept open to be canvassed if and when a proper assessment is made.3. Violation of Rules of Natural Justice:The petitioner argued that the abrupt change in assessment methods by the Excise authorities was done without notice or opportunity for representation, violating the rules of natural justice. The court agreed, stating that the determination of value for duty involves complex factors and cannot be done wholly behind the back of the assessee. The evidence relied upon by the authorities should be disclosed to the assessee, allowing them to test the materials and provide their own.The court emphasized that while the proceedings are not akin to a judicial trial, the rule of natural justice must be observed. The assessee must be given a proper opportunity to challenge the materials used for assessment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the assessments made by the Excise authorities were based on incorrect principles and must be set aside. A writ of certiorari was issued to quash the demand notices, and a writ of mandamus directed the respondents not to proceed based on the invalid notices unless a proper assessment is made. The point of limitation was left open for future determination. No order as to costs was made.