2008 (2) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of assessable value under D.P.C.O. regulations.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was to determine whether the maximum price fixed by the D.P.C.O. should be considered as the assessable value even if the goods are sold at a lower price. Both the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that duty should be paid based on the actual selling price of the goods, not the maximum price set under D.P.C.O.

The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Board's instructions from F.No. 312/1/75-CX.10 dated 8-8-85, which clarified that the provisions of Sec. 4(1)(a)(ii) apply only when the goods under assessment are actually sold by the assessee at the statutory price. If goods are sold at a price lower than the D.P.C.O. price, that lower price should be considered as the assessable value for excise duty payment purposes. The objective of fixing maximum prices under the law is to ensure that consumers do not bear a burden higher than prescribed, which is better served when goods are sold below the maximum fixed price.

The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to previous legal judgments, particularly the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. UOI and others - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 175 (S.C.) and UOI v. Bombay Tyres - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), to support the interpretation that goods sold at a lower price than the D.P.C.O. price should be valued based on the actual selling price.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding no error in considering the actual selling price as the assessable value for excise duty calculation purposes.