9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ists were submitted to the excise authorities showing the same uniform price plus the actual cost of freight in each place. On 3rd October, 1975, an order was passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, rejecting the petitioner's out-of-Bombay price lists on the ground that the normal price for delivery at Bombay was known with the result that under the new Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, it was not permissible for the petitioner to file separate price lists. By its letter dated 6th October, 1975 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, the petitioner objected to the latter's interpretation of Section 4 and stated that the duty would be paid by the petitioner under protest. On 15th October, 1975, the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents, that the petitioner's case was covered by Section 4(1)(a), as the normal price of the petitioner's goods would be the price at which they were removed from the factory gate. 3. At this stage, a reference to the relevant provisions of the new Section 4 is pertinent. The new Section 4 which came into force with effect from 1st October, 1975, provides for the valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. The relevant portions thereof read as under :- "(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be- (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accept Mr. Joshi's reply that in construing Section 4(1)(a) a common sense view must be taken inasmuch as because the freight was to be paid by the customers at their premises, the rest of the amount would be the factory-gate price. What Section 4(1)(a) postulates is that in order to arrive at the normal price there should be a factory-gate sale, and not that the normal price should be inferred as suggested by Mr. Joshi. The provisions of a taxing statute must be construed by the interpretation of the words and phraseology of the section without resorting to inferences and common sense which may like the Chancellor's foot vary from person to person. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and after deducting the selling cost and selling profit. Excise is levied only on the amount representing the manufacturing cost plus the manufacturing profit and excludes post-manufacturing cost and profit arising from post-manufacturing operation, namely selling profit. This is the ratio laid down by not less than two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, in A.K Roy v. Voltas Ltd. - 1977 E.L.T.(J 177), and in Atic Industries v. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, - 1978 E.L.T. (J 444) = A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 960, and has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 476) and in Century Spinning and manufacturing Co. v. Union of India - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 199). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
