Samir Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Union Carbide (India) Ltd., the petitioner in the present rule, has challenged the order dated 17th April, 1976, signed on 29th April, 1976, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, inter alia, directing the petitioner to submit price list without any deduction from the uniform selling price on account of transport charges. The petitioner has also assailed letters dated 9th October, 1975, of the Assistant Collector approving price lists subject to inclusion of costs of wooden packages and those dated 10th May, 1976, issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, respondent No. 2, returning the price lists, submitted by the petitioner, for resubmission after necessary revisions in the light of the aforesaid order. The reliefs which the petitioner has asked for, are for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for rescission, cancellation, withdrawal and/or quashing of the aforesaid order and letters dated 9th October, 1975, and 10th May, 1976, and also for order of restraint against the respondents from giving any effect to or taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of and under the impugned order and letters.
(2.) The petitioner manufactures, inter alia, dry batteries of various types and sizes. For that purpose, the petitioner has two factories in West Bengal, two in Madras and one in Hyderabad. Such factories are known as National Carbon Company being a division of the petitioner. Sale and delivery of such batteries are made in course of wholesale trade through sales godowns situate in different parts of India. The petitioner has a uniform selling price for each and a uniform trade discount is allowed out of the said selling prices to the different wholesalers. The cost of transportation from the factory to the places of delivery is borne by the petitioner and such costs consist of cost of transport of goods to the various godowns as well as costs of transport involved in delivering the goods to their ultimate places of delivery. The batteries after manufacture are first packed in cardboard cartons, which the petitioner describes as primary packing, and a number of such cartons are placed in wooden boxes to facilitate transportation and prevent possible damages in transit. The latter packing is described by the petitioner as secondary packing and the costs, involved in such packing was recovered from the wholesalers to whom sales are made, as extra charges.
(3.) In the present case, the petitioner submitted price lists and the said price lists were accepted with the remarks that the prices mentioned in the said price lists were approved subject to the inclusion of costs of wooden packing, as and when the goods were cleared in such packing. In arriving at the valuation for imposition of excise duty, regular trade discount, transport charges and charges for secondary packing were excluded by the petitioner. The transport charges, as mentioned in column 10 of the price lists comprised different figures for different destinations and the petitioner alleges the same to be actual transport charges.;