1979 (1) TMI 99 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Sikri and Grover can be treated as a "related person" u/s 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Determination of the assessable value for excise duty purposes under the amended Section 4 of the Act.
3. Consideration of post-manufacturing expenses in determining the assessable value.

Summary:

1. Whether Sikri and Grover can be treated as a "related person" u/s 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner contended that Sikri and Grover, despite being the main buyers of their products, are not a "related person" as defined u/s 4(4). The respondents argued that since the bulk of the goods are sold to Sikri and Grover, they should be considered a related person. The court held that the term "related person" implies a direct or indirect interest in each other's business. The respondents failed to provide evidence of such an interest between the petitioner and Sikri and Grover. Therefore, the court concluded that Sikri and Grover cannot be treated as a related person.

2. Determination of the assessable value for excise duty purposes under the amended Section 4 of the Act:
The petitioner argued that the assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at the factory gate, not the price at which Sikri and Grover sell the products in Bombay. The court noted that u/s 4(1)(a), the normal price should be the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, provided the buyer is not a related person. Since the petitioner does sell some products at the factory gate at wholesale rates, this price should be taken as the normal price for excise duty purposes.

3. Consideration of post-manufacturing expenses in determining the assessable value:
The petitioner contended that post-manufacturing expenses such as transportation, insurance, and handling charges should not be included in the assessable value. The court agreed, stating that excise duty is a tax on the production and manufacture of goods, and therefore, post-manufacturing expenses must be excluded from the assessable value. The court emphasized that the respondents did not provide evidence that the sales at the factory gate were not genuine or that they were made to related persons.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders of the respondents that determined the assessable value based on the prices at which Sikri and Grover sold the products in Bombay. The court held that the assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at the factory gate, excluding post-manufacturing expenses. The rule nisi was made absolute, with no order as to costs.