SRICHAKRA TYRES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Appeal No. E/SB/5426/ 93/MAS, question before the SZB of this Tribunal, as framed by it, was "whether in the case of the goods which have been sold at a particular price and where duty is subsequently demanded in respect of the same in terms of Section 4(1) reed with Section 4(4)(d)(ii) the amount of duty which became payable later and which has been demanded can be abated from the sale price or not"[see para 5 of the referring order of SZB].

(2.) FACTS in the other appeal of M/s. G. Bell and Co., Madras are that the appellants were treating their product "honeyrex" as non -excisable/non -duti -able. It has, however, been held to be dutiable under Tariff sub -heading 1702.30. As regards the quantum of duty, the appellant have contended that sale price realised by them should be treated as cum -duty price and that the element of duty included in that price should be deducted in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in order to arrive at the assessable value instead of charging duty on the price realised by them treating the same as assessable value, as the Revenue contends. Same judgments, as noted above, have been noticed by the Bench (including Third Member) for referring the same question, as mentioned in para 1.1 above.

(3.) ISSUE before us is, therefore, already set out as mentioned in para 1.1 above. We may mention, at the outset, that in neither of the two appeals before us, goods were exempted or treated as exempted so as to take into account effect of any notification as stipulated in the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) defining the expression "effective duty", 4.1 Before we deal with the question posed to us, we may set out the relevant provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) : -