TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53 (N) of 1971, No. 1469 (N) and 1470 of 1972 - - - Dated:- 25-4-1985 - D.A. Desai, A.P. Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ. [Judgment per : Balakrishna Eradi, J.]. - In these three appeals the parties involved are the same and the point arising for determination is identical. Hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The Bata Shoe Company Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Company') is an existing company within the meaning of The Companies Act, 1956; with its Head Office at No. 30, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-17. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in articles of footwear and accessories. For the purposes of the said business, the company has three manufacturing esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 36 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) of which the value does not exceed Rs. 5.00 per pair, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. (No. 171/67)" 4. The sole question raised in these appeals concerns the interpretation of this Notification. 5. During the years 1967 and 1968, the company was manufacturing certain items of footwear of which the wholesale price was Rs. 6.25 per pair. The company contended that since the assessable value of such items of footwear calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time was only Rs. 4.94 and hence less than Rs. 5 per pair, such items qualified for exemption from duty under the Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the expression "value" occurring in the Notification dated July 24, 1967 is not the deemed `value' calculated according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act but is the real and actual `value' of the goods after payment of duty. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was moved by the company only after short interval of time during which it had been pursuing its remedies before the highest Departmental Authorities as well as before the Patna and Calcutta High Courts. A Division Bench consisting of two learned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the company's Writ Petition in limini on the ground that the company had approached the High Court at a very belated stage. The Division Bench, however, certified the case to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant time, omitting portions thereof which are unnecessary for our present purpose : "4. Determination of value for the purposes of duty - Whereunder this Act, any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the article, such value shall be deemed to be - (a) the wholesale cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold at the time of the removal of the articles chargeable with duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the place of manufacture or production, or if a wholesale market does not exist for such article at such place, at the nearest place where such market exists. (b) (Not relevant) Explanation - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tem 36 of the First Schedule is made wholly dependent upon the `value' of the article of footwear; in case such `value' exceeds Rs. 5 per pair, duty will be chargeable at the rate of 10% whereas if the value does not exceed Rs. 5 per pair, no duty will be chargeable on such items of footwear, that is the rate of duty will be `nil'. It is precisely to such a situation that the provision of Section 4 gets attracted because as expressly stated in the opening part of the said section the mode of determination of `value' specified in the section will be applicable to all cases where any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent upon the value of the article. In the case of a total exemption, the rate will be `nil'. Thus, Entry 36 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1972 and we have no hesitation to agree with the said view. The High Court of Calcutta was of opinion that Section 4 only lays down the formula or the principle for determination of "value for the purpose of duty" and it has not laid down any principle or formula for the determination of value for exemption from duty as already indicated. In our opinion this is not a correct interpretation of the scope and ambit of Section 4 of the Act. 10. In the result, we hold that inasmuch as the value of the articles of footwear in question calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act did not exceed Rs. 5 per pair, the articles in question were exempt from the charge to duty of excise under the Notification dated July 24, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
