1982 (4) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal relates to the assessment of excise duty payable on the wholesale cash price of storage batteries. On 30th April, 1970, the South Eastern Railway placed an order with the respondent for supply of 192 sets of electric storage batteries. The batteries were to be manufactured with old containers to be supplied by the Railway, the value of which was agreed to be adjusted against the price of the finished batteries. The price of each finished battery was fixed at Rs. 309.50 but, as the Railway would supply the containers, it was agreed that a rebate of Rs. 50/- was to be deducted from the said price. Consequently the Railway was to pay a sum of Rs. 259.50 for each battery. The said contract dated 30th April, 1970 was, however, subsequently....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rders dated 13th February, 1973 and 5th July, 1973. By the first order, the Assistant Collector directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 18,136.80 and by the second order a sum of Rs. 4,200/- on account of differential duty from 11th July, 1971 to 21st November, 1971 and from 1st October, 1972 to 31st October, 1972 respectively. The respondent being aggrieved by the said orders of the Assistant Collector preferred appeals to the Appellate Collector who, by his order dated 29th May, 1974, allowed both the appeals. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance in exercise of its power of revision called upon the respondent to show cause why the orders dated May 29, 1974 of the Appellate Collector should not be set aside. After considering t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... procuring such containers and lead acid from the market, the respondent got the same from the Railway and had to pay the price of the same which was adjusted as rebate. It is difficult to accept the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had not to incur any cost with regard to the container and lead acid that were supplied by the Railway. Indeed, the respondent had to adjust the price of the container and, lead acid against the price of the finished product. In our opinion, the manufacturing cost of a finished storage battery cannot be conceived of without taking into consideration the cost of the containers and lead acid. As has been already stated, the respondent was not, under the contract, to supply parts of t....