1989 (3) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Prior to 10-6-1986, the respondents were filing price list in Part I claiming that their product was being sold to buyers, not being related persons in the course of wholesale trade - assessable under Section 4(l)(a) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter, the Act). On 11-6-1986, the respondents filed a fresh price list in respect of their new range of electronic typewriters in Part V as excisable goods being sold in retail by the asses-see/related person under Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (hereafter, the Rules). It was claimed that electronic typewriters will be sold through various branches of the respondents located at various places in the country. The sale was claimed to be a retail sale to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion for change in the basis of valuation for purposes of collecting Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim of the respondents to valuation under Rule 6(a) of the Rufles. He, however, allowed deduction on cost of transportation/transit, insurance and equalised freight of Rs. 450/- upto specified destination plus the actual transportation expenses of the machine when taken by the engineers to the customer's place, as sapported by documentary evidence. The deduction in the cost of installation charges and cost of ribbon wherever supplied was also disallowed. 3. When the respondents went up in appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector, the learned Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act. It is submitted, however, that there is no estoppel in taxation matters as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Others -1983 E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.). The assessee was valued within its rights to make a claim for different basis for valuation if he was earlier harbouring under a mistaken impression of the law. 8. It is emphasized that the point at issue in this case is well settled in the light of the following case law: 1. 1978 E.L.T. (J 260) - Vacuum Oil Company v. Secretary of State. 2. 1987 (10) ECR 651 - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. M/s. Voltas Ltd. 3. 1988 (33) E.L.T. 147 - Collector of Central Exci....