9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial Commodities Act. Part of sugar, at the relevant time was allowed to be sold as "Free-Sale" sugar and part of sugar was to be sold at controlled rates to be fixed by the Government. We are concerned here with the period from March, 1978 to November, 1980. During this period the Central Government has passed orders fixing the rates of controlled sugar. The respondent was not satisfied with the said fixation and disputed the same by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. Some interim orders were passed in the said writ petition filed by the respondent and other similarly situated manufacturers of sugar, allowing these manufacturers to charge higher price than the price that was fixed by the Government. On the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as to how the respondent was claiming the amount realisable only to the extent of Rs. 13,54,773.74. The respondent, however, remained uncooperative and did not submit any detail required for requantification. In these circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed its earlier demand of Rs. 30,58,904.79. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter further before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 21.07.2006 and set aside the differential duty claimed by the Revenue. While allowing this appeal of the respondent, the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of this Court to the final order dated 21.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in its ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (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) "related person" means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub- distributor of such distributor. Explanation.- In this clause" holding company","subsidiary company and "relative" have the same meanings as in the Companies Act, 1956 ; (1 of 1956 ) (d) "value", in rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso (ii) of Section 4 and on that basis he submits that since the price was fixed by the Government under the aforesaid Essential Commodities Act, that was the price fixed under the law and, therefore, in terms of the proviso the excise duty was rightly paid by the assessee by declaring the price as fixed by the Government. This contention is clearly misconceived. The controversy that arose which affected the sugar industries as a whole was as a result of introduction of Clause 5-A of the Sugar-cane (Control) Order and the Bhargava Commission Report of 1974. The contention of the sugar manufacturing units against the then notified price was that since the price had to be fixed under Section 3(3-C) of the Sugar-cane (Control) Order, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of Mr. Nariman that the changed methodology adopted from July 11, 1975 was directly contrary to the recommendations of Bhargava Commission which have come to be accepted by the Government. Accordingly, we hold that the Government could not, in law, proceed to a determination of the levy price by mopping up 100 per cent of the excess realisation of free sale sugar. This overlooks the fact that the producer had become statutorily entitled to 50 per cent of such excess realisation from October 1, 1974." This being the case,it is clear that the only price that was spoken about even by the interim orders was the price "fixed under any law for the time being in force" and thus an interim order fixing the higher price would also be an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
