1976 (9) TMI 173 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of excise duty on electric fans.
2. Determination of assessable value for excise duty.
3. Deductions for various expenses in arriving at assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by a manufacturer of Electric Fans against the rejection of a refund claim of excise duty amounting to Rs. 38,01,345.66 for the period 1-1-1973 to 16-7-1975. The appellants claimed that the duty paid was based on provisional values that included various expenses like discounts, freight charges, packing charges, and the value of Speed Control Regulator. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, stating that only trade discounts were passed on to Chief Distributors, and essential expenses like packing were disallowed. The exclusion of the value of Speed Control Regulators was also rejected. The appellants argued that the duty should be levied on the net amount realized at the factory gate upon the sale of electric fans.

2. The appellants contended that the wholesale cash price should be determined after deducting various discounts, commissions, and post-manufacturing expenses. They referred to the Voltas case by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that excise duty should be based on manufacturing cost and profits. They argued that the assessable value should consider customary trade discounts and expenses incurred post-manufacturing. The judgment highlighted that the real value for excise assessment should only include manufacturing cost and profits, excluding post-manufacturing expenses.

3. The judgment analyzed the legal position regarding deductions of selling and post-manufacturing expenses for determining the assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Referring to various judgments, it stated that the wholesale cash price at the time of sale by Distributors should be considered for excise duty assessment. The judgment allowed deductions for certain expenses like godown rent, insurance charges, and administrative expenses related to sales organizations. However, it disallowed deductions for packing, freight, and the cost of the fan regulator, based on previous orders. The order modified the Assistant Collector's decision, allowing deductions for specific expenses while disallowing others.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the refund claim of excise duty on electric fans and the determination of assessable value for excise duty. It provided a detailed analysis of the expenses that could be deducted for arriving at the assessable value, considering legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.