1972 (12) TMI 37 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation - Wholesale market - Valuation - Favoured buyer - Valuation - Sole distributor - Valuation - Dealings at arms length - Nature of excise duty - Valuation - Exclusion of post manufacturing - Valuation - Freight, interest, octroi etc.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellate order regarding excise duty liability.
2. Determination of the "wholesale cash price" under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of retail price for excise duty assessment.
4. Interpretation of "wholesale market" and "wholesale cash price".
5. Validity of trade discounts as part of the "wholesale cash price".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellate order regarding excise duty liability:
Voltas Ltd. challenged the appellate order dated May 2, 1967, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise's orders regarding excise duty for the years 1962, 1964, 1965, and 1966, along with the demand notices for Rs. 27,57,177.19. The High Court allowed the petition, and this appeal was filed against that order.

2. Determination of the "wholesale cash price" under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The main issue was whether excise duty should be based on the retail price or the price payable by wholesale dealers after deducting a 22% discount. The High Court held that the price for which the articles were sold to wholesale dealers, less the discount, represented the "wholesale cash price" under Section 4(a) of the Act.

3. Applicability of retail price for excise duty assessment:
The Superintendent of Central Excise had intimated that excise duty would be assessed based on the retail price rather than the "wholesale cash price". This assessment was challenged, and the High Court ruled in favor of using the wholesale price after discount for excise duty calculation.

4. Interpretation of "wholesale market" and "wholesale cash price":
The appellants argued that the agreements with wholesale dealers conferred extra-commercial advantages, making these sales not representative of the "wholesale cash price". They contended that a wholesale market required sales to independent purchasers and not just favored ones. However, the judgment clarified that a wholesale market does not necessitate a physical market or sales to independent buyers. It emphasized that the potentiality of wholesale sales suffices, and agreements with wholesale dealers do not negate the wholesale nature of sales if made at arm's length and in the usual course of business.

5. Validity of trade discounts as part of the "wholesale cash price":
The appellants contended that the 22% discount allowed was not a trade discount. However, no evidence was presented to the High Court to support this claim. The High Court and the judgment both concluded that the discount represented a trade discount, as there was no indication of secret arrangements or extra-commercial advantages affecting the price.

Conclusion:
The High Court's decision was upheld, confirming that the price to wholesale dealers, less the 22% discount, constituted the "wholesale cash price" for excise duty purposes under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.