Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee could be compelled to adopt valuation under Notification No. 245/83 dated 13-9-1983 instead of the assessable value under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4; and whether the notification could be denied on the basis of the conditions attached to it.
Analysis: The notification granted exemption only subject to specified conditions, including that exemption had to be claimed in respect of all medicines cleared by the assessee which were covered by the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987, and that no other discount could be claimed as deduction. The valuation under the proviso to Section 4 applied only where a statutory wholesale price was fixed. The distinction between a statutorily fixed wholesale price and the retail price referred to in the notification was material, and the attempted substitution of a notional wholesale price from the retail price did not fit the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The assessee could not be compelled to adopt the notification-based valuation on the facts as shown, and the appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order was not entitled to succeed.
Final Conclusion: The order allowing the assessee's valuation position was left undisturbed, and the departmental appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A conditional exemption notification cannot be mechanically imposed where its own conditions are not shown to be satisfied, and Section 4 applies only according to its statutory scheme for determining assessable value.