Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The following common question of law arises in the present four revision petitions filed by the Revenue: Whether the assessing authority was justified in imposing additional sales tax on the basis of assessable value of the commodity 'hair oil' sold by the assessee -manufacturer to the distributor M/s. Bajaj Sevashram Limited computed as per Sec. 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 irrespective of actual sale consideration charged by the assessee for sale of the said commodity?
(2.) The appellate authorities below held in favour of the assessee that the assessing authority could not impose such additional tax on the assessee and unless sale consideration was shown to have been charged by the assessee from its purchaser under an agreement, no such additional tax could be imposed upon the respondent -assessee. Upholding the contention of the assessee that imposition of Central excise duty on the basis of assessable value computed as per Sec. 4 of the Central Excise Act was hypothetical sale consideration as far as respondent -assessee was concerned and without discharging burden of proof which lay upon the Revenue to establish that the respondent -assessee had collected anything beyond the sale consideration disclosed in the sale invoices, returns and books of account maintained in the regular course of business, the appellate authorities concurrently held that, the assessing authority could not impose any such additional sales tax.
(3.) In the present revision petitions filed by the Revenue, the learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Vineet Mathur and Mr. Rishabh Sancheti candidly submitted that as far as question of law is concerned, with the latest decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. Rajasthan Chemists Association reported in : [2006] 147 STC 542 : [2006] 6 SCC 773, the said question stands decided against the Revenue and though the case involved before the honourable Supreme Court pertained to the Drug Price Control Order, the analogy and ratio of the said decision would cover the controversy in hand. He further submitted that as far as excise duty component is concerned, actual excise duty paid by the respondent -assessee was already included in the taxable sale price in the hands of the respondent -assessee.;