HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(ALL)-1985-3-59
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 25,1985

HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The summons dated September 4, 1984 issued in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly, the Act) served upon the petitioner M/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works Limited, Bamrauli, Allahabad (hereinafter, the Glass Works) brought them to this Court again through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing it as without jurisdiction and seeking, inter alia a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Assistant Collector (Central Excise), Allahabad to approve the price list No. 12/84/(G) of April 13, 1984 submitted by the Glass Works under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The petition was heard by us at some length on the prayer jointly made by Sri S.P. Gupta appearing for the Glass Works and Sri R.S. Dhawan representing the Assistant Collector. They requested us to dispose of the matter finally at the admission stage itself and this is why we are proceeding to do so. BACKGROUND
(2.) The Glass Works has a factory at Bamrauli in the district of Allahabad wherein it manufactures articles like wind screens, door screens, back screens, etc., for motor vehicles and also mirrors. This is being done under a licence obtained by the Glass Works for its factory at Bamrauli. The case of the Glass Works is that normally it sells these goods to buyers in the course of wholesale trade at the factory premises at Bamrauli and also from its depots at various places in the country to which it transports its goods for sale from the factory. The wholesale prices at which sales are made at the factory premises differ widely from prices at which sales are made at various wholesale depots for a variety of reasons inherent in the nature of the articles which are manufactured and sold by the Glass Works, These goods are not excisable articles, but the dispute in that regard is not the subject matter of the present petition wherein the Glass Works has come to this court for redress on the assumption that these goods are subject to levy of Excise Duty under the Act.
(3.) The determination and payment of Excise Duty is made according to the procedure laid down in the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (briefly, the Rules). Chapter VII-A of these rules is entitled "Removal of Excisable Goods on Determination of Duty by Producers, Manufacturers of private Warehouse Licensees". Commonly, the rules contained in this Chapter are spoken of as self assessment procedure. We shall refer to the relevant rules wherever necessary. The provisions of the Act which may be noticed by us in the first instance are those of Sections 4, 11A, 14, 35, 35A, etc., some of which we may read, to the extent it is necessary. We begin with Section 4 which, in its material parts, is in these terms : 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise- (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale : Provided that (i) where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons), each such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in Clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such class of buyers ; (ii) where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; (iii) * * * * * (b) where the normal price of such goods in not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where, in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery shall be excluded from such price. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any excisable goods, for which a tariff value has been fixed under subsection (2) of section 3. (4) For the purpose of this section, (a) * * * * * * (b) "place of removal" means( i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; or (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, from where such goods are removed ; (c) * * * * * * (d) * * * * * * (e) * * * * * *;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.