1978 (2) TMI 102 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of biscuits sold in returnable and non-returnable containers for excise duty purposes.
2. Inclusion of container value in the assessable value of biscuits.
3. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Biscuits Sold in Returnable and Non-Returnable Containers for Excise Duty Purposes:
The petitioners manufacture biscuits at their factory in Pondicherry, which fall under Tariff Item 1C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise (third respondent) opined that the petitioners should submit two price lists due to the distinct types of sales: one for Pondicherry (without containers) and another for the southern region (with containers). The petitioners objected, arguing that excise duty should only be on the manufacture, not on the subsequent sale conditions. The Assistant Collector's order was appealed and set aside by the second respondent. However, the first respondent issued a show cause notice and eventually restored the third respondent's order, stating that biscuits sold in returnable and non-returnable containers are two distinct categories for assessment purposes.

2. Inclusion of Container Value in the Assessable Value of Biscuits:
The petitioners contended that the first respondent erred in law by considering biscuits sold in non-returnable containers as a distinct category for excise duty assessment. They argued that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under Tariff Item 1C, refers only to 'biscuits,' and does not justify including container value in the assessable value. The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's stance that excise duty is a duty on manufacture, and subsequent product handling is irrelevant for excise duty purposes. The respondents, however, maintained that the value of containers should be included in the assessable value since the biscuits are marketed only after being packed in containers, and the packing is an ancillary process to manufacture.

3. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
Section 4 defines the value of excisable goods, which is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold in wholesale trade at the factory gate. The petitioners argued that the value should not include post-manufacturing expenses, such as the cost of containers. They emphasized that the term 'value' should be equated with manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profit, excluding the cost of containers. The respondents countered that packing is part of the manufacturing process for biscuits, and the value of containers should be included in the assessable value. The court referred to judicial interpretations, including the Gujarat High Court's decision, which supported the inclusion of container value in the assessable value when goods are delivered at the factory gate in packed condition.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the value of containers must be included in the assessable value of biscuits for excise duty purposes. The court emphasized that packing is an ancillary process to manufacture, and the wholesale price at the factory gate, including the value of containers, is the correct basis for excise duty assessment. The petitioners' arguments were rejected, and the order of the first respondent was upheld.