1998 (10) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification under Notification 245/83 for excise duty calculation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of medicines, sought the benefit of exemption under Notification 245/83. The issue arose when the Assistant Collector ordered that only basic excise duty should be deducted for calculating the assessable value, excluding special excise duty under the relevant Finance Act. This decision was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the filing of appeals by the manufacturer.

2. Notification No. 245/83 exempted certain goods from excise duty, subject to specific conditions. The interpretation of the explanation in the notification was crucial in this case. The explanation stated that excise duty payable, if any, should be deducted before allowing the discount from the retail price of the medicines. This explanation formed the basis for the dispute regarding the deduction of excise duty components.

3. The lower authorities relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the Modi Rubber Ltd. case to support their interpretation that only basic excise duty should be deducted, excluding special excise duty. However, the appellant argued that this decision was not applicable in the current scenario, as the exemption under consideration related solely to excise duty under the Central Excise Act.

4. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 4 of the Act concerning the assessable value of goods. It emphasized that unless the notification explicitly deviated from the Act's scheme, the determination of assessable value should align with Section 4. The court highlighted that the deduction of excise duty and retail price discount should follow a specific sequence, as clarified in the notification and the Act.

5. The court clarified that the purpose of the explanation in the notification was to specify the sequence of deduction for excise duty and retail price discount. It emphasized that both components should be deducted, with excise duty under the Central Excises Act and special excise duty under the Finance Act being considered. The court's interpretation favored a comprehensive deduction process for accurate assessable value calculation.

6. Ultimately, the court found the orders confirming the demand based on the incorrect interpretation of the notification unsustainable. The appeals filed by the manufacturer were allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the correct interpretation of exemption notifications and relevant legal provisions in excise duty calculations.