TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (6) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Road Bombay, where the petitioners manufacture electric lamps, glass shells and fluorescent tubes and other components. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari or a direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing or setting aside the order dated 20th May 1975 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division VI, whereby he refused to approve the price lists No. 3/75 and 7/75 submitted by the petitioners along with their letters both dated 6th May 1975, under prayer (a). The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the respondents- the Union of India and the said Assistant Collector of Central Excise to withdraw or cancel the impugned order, to approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch post-manufacturing operations were to be excluded. It is the petitioners' case that in ignorance of the correct legal position and/or under a misapprehension of the correct legal position and/or under a mistake of law the petitioners submitted from time to time price lists for the approval of the respondents showing therein the assessable value of the products of the petitioners by including post-manufacturing expenses and profits. On 1st December 1972, the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Roy v. Voltas Limited, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 225 = 1977 E.L.T. (J 177), held that excise duty was a tax on the production and manufacture of goods and that the real value for the purpose of Section 4 of the said Act could only be determined by deducting fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....culars (Ex. C to the petition). 4. Shri Hidayatullah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and in fact they are passed in disobedience of the judgment of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Roy v. Voltas Limited, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 225 = 1977 E.L.T. (J 177). Shri Hidayatullah further pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 476), and another Division Bench of this Court in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 199), following the ratio laid down in Voltas case and another decision of the Supreme Court in Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave, Assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revenue, it was argued that such expenses could not be allowed to be deducted from the wholesale price charged by the petitioner-company to ex-wholesalers in arriving at the wholesale cash price for calculating the excise duty under Section 4(a) of the Act. The submission made on behalf of the revenue in this connection were not accepted by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the expenses under the said four heads incurred by the petitioner-company in so far as and to the extent to which such expenses were attributable, to its post-manufacturing activity or non-manufacturing activity would have to be deducted from the wholesale cash prices indicated in its approved price lists and charged by it is wholesalers while arriving....