1980 (12) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vely consumed by them in the manufacture of torches. In the said price list, the petitioners had calculated the cost of torch bodies on the basis of price of slugs which has been arrived at after including an amount of Rs. 50/- being the anticipated price rise w.e.f. 1-3-1970 in the base price of aluminium slugs. Eventually when price rise did not take place, they filed another price list dated 7-9-1970 with effective date as 1-3-1970 and in that price list they had calculated the cost of torch bodies on the basis of the price of slugs reduced by Rs. 400 per M.T. vis-a-vis the base prices shown in the price list dated 26-3-1970. The reduction in the base price of aluminium slugs was carried out by them on the ground that the anticipated pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of which the proforma credit had been taken could not be reduced from the basic value of the slugs. On the basis of the said observations, the Appellate Collector rejected the appeal. 4. In the Revision Application, the petitioners have inter alia stated that the Appellate Collector had erred in holding that the duty paid on aluminium slugs should be included in the manufacturing cost of torch bodies for the purposes of levy of duty on the item and in confirming the order of the Supdt. enhancing the base price of the aluminium slugs by Rs. 350/- per ton while approving their revised price list dated 7-9-1970. 5. At the time of personal hearing, the petitioners stated that in the price list which they had filed on 26-3-70, they went....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the value under Section 4 which had been taken for the purposes of assessment and they had duly declared that value in the price list of 7-9-1970. They further stated that the supplier having made it quite clear that they were not going to pass the burden of excise duty of Rs. 350/- per ton which they were absorbing earlier and that fact also being quite obvious from the invoice issued to them from the price of slugs by the Indian Aluminium Co., the price declared by them for the impugned goods on the basis of the cost price of the slugs should have been accepted. 6. The petitioners also contended that the excise duty element on the slugs for the proforma credit which was available to them should not have formed part of the price of sl....