AMCO BATTERIES (P) LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ or Order, quashing the levy made by the First Respondent on 16 -11 -1959 as well as the Order of the Second Respondent in appeal made on 14 -10 -1960.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Private Limited Company manufacturing Electric Batteries. The Company was started in 1955. Its factory as well as its office (both housed In the same building) is located just outside the limits of Bangalore City.

(3.) ON 1 -3 -1956, 6 -5 -1956 and 21 -1 -1957, the petitioner declared the wholesale price fixed by it for its various products as required by the Central Excise Rules and the same was intimated to the Authorities, The wholesale price so declared was accepted and excise duty levied accordingly till 10 -12 -1958. In about December 1958, the Excise Authorities Intimated to the petitioner that the "wholesale price" declared by the petitioner cannot be accepted as correct as in their view the whole -sale market price at Bangalore is very much more than the wholesale price declared by the petitioner. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that the Batteries manufactured by the petitioner have not got a wholesale market at the factory site and therefore the wholesale cash price ruling, at Bangalore have to be taken into consideration. It is said that the wholesale prices charged by the petitioner to its distributors are very much less than the wholesale prices prevailing at Bangalore even after deducting the distributor's discount and incidental expenses. Incidentally it was mentioned "further, these two firms (Ms. Addison and Co. (P) Ltd., and Messrs. George Oakes (P) Limited), are associate firms with Messrs. Amco Batteries Limited". We are unable to find out the real significance of this observation. We are informed that the aforementioned two firms' as well as the petitioner firm have some common directors. But it is not the case of the Central Excise Authorities that on that ground any concession was being shown to these firms. It is admitted that same Ex. factory price was and is charged to all the fourteen distributors. The goods manufactured by the petitioner are solely distributed by the aforementioned distributors, particular territory being, assigned to each distributor.