1999 (7) TMI 683 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Note No. 2 in the Proforma of declaration under Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price.
3. Compliance with Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in declaring retail sale prices of excisable goods.
4. Constitutionality of Note No. 2 in relation to Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: The validity of Note No. 2 in the Proforma of declaration under Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner, a manufacturer of glazed tiles with markets in different states, argued that the note exceeded delegated authority by requiring the highest retail sale price to be mentioned in the declaration. The petitioner contended that the retail sale price declared on the package alone should determine the valuation for excise duty purposes, and Note No. 2 was deemed violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was analyzed concerning the valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price. The court noted that the Act empowered the Central Government to specify goods where retail prices must be declared on packages, with the maximum declared price deemed as the retail sale price for excise duty calculation purposes. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the provisions of Section 4A in determining excise duty based on the retail sale price declared on packages.

Issue 3: Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, particularly sub-rule (2A), mandated the declaration of retail sale prices for excisable goods. The court highlighted that the delegated authority was authorized to prescribe the manner and form of such declarations, with the Central Board of Excise and Customs specifying the particulars required for the declaration. The court stressed the importance of accurate and timely declarations to ensure compliance with the valuation of excisable goods for excise duty purposes.

Issue 4: The constitutionality of Note No. 2 in relation to Article 301 of the Constitution of India was deliberated. The court found that the note did not violate Article 301 as it did not restrict the movement of goods between states. The court emphasized that the note aimed to maintain uniformity in valuing excisable goods for excise duty, based on the maximum retail price declared on packages from any state. The argument that the note contravened Article 301 was dismissed, reinforcing the validity of the note in the proforma of declaration under Rule 173 C.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Note No. 2 in the Proforma of declaration under Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and affirming the interpretation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate declarations and compliance with the prescribed rules for determining excise duty based on retail sale prices of goods.