9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus sought by Premier Tyres Limited against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for disposal of representations and acceptance of assessable values. 2. Dispute over the assessable value for excise duty calculation on post-manufacturing expenses. 3. Interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 4. Application of Supreme Court decision in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. on assessable value determination. 5. Refund of excess excise duty collected based on incorrect assessment. Analysis: The case involved Premier Tyres Limited seeking a writ of mandamus against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for the disposal of representations and acceptance of assessable values. The company contended that the net dealer price of its products included post-manufacturing expenses and should not be considered for excise duty calculation. The company argued that the value for excise duty should be based on the price at which the products are capable of being sold at the place of manufacture, excluding post-manufacturing expenses. The Central Excise department, however, insisted on including these expenses in the assessable value for duty calculation. The court analyzed Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which provide for the levy of excise duty and determination of assessable value. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., the court emphasized that the wholesale cash price should be determined at the time of removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory, excluding post-manufacturing expenses. The court highlighted that the billing price should reflect not only manufacturing cost and profit but also freight, insurance, sales promotion costs, and overheads attributable to the sales organization. Based on the Supreme Court decision and the interpretation of the relevant provisions, the court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to dispose of the representations in accordance with the law. The Assistant Collector was instructed to refrain from assessing and recovering excise duty on post-manufacturing costs and selling profits. Additionally, the court ordered re-assessments for the concerned products and the refund of any excess amount collected from Premier Tyres Limited due to incorrect assessments. In conclusion, the court upheld Premier Tyres Limited's arguments regarding the assessable value for excise duty calculation and directed the Assistant Collector to act in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court decision cited in the judgment.
|
