1977 (5) TMI 19 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of excise duty on manufacturing cost
- Treatment of containers supplied free of cost by Railways in excise duty calculation

Analysis:

The judgment involves a dispute regarding the excise duty levied on the manufacturing cost of electric storage batteries supplied to Railways. The petitioners, manufacturers of these batteries, received containers from Railways for recharging and selling to Railways. The Excise authorities demanded duty based on the inclusion of the value of the containers in the manufacturing cost. The petitioner appealed the decision, which was initially in their favor but was later overturned by the revisional authority.

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of excise duty on the manufacturing cost, as highlighted in the Supreme Court case of A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. The petitioner argued that since the containers were supplied free of cost by Railways, they should not be considered part of the manufacturing cost for excise duty calculation. This argument was supported by the contention that excise duty is only leviable on the manufacturing cost, excluding selling cost and profit.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the entire product, including the containers, should be considered in determining the manufacturing cost for excise duty purposes. They contended that the containers were essential for manufacturing the batteries and should be included in the cost calculation. Additionally, they pointed to the Explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which allows only trade discounts as deductions.

The judge, Mr. Justice T.K. Basu, analyzed the arguments and held that since the containers were provided free of charge by Railways, they did not constitute a cost incurred by the petitioner in the manufacturing process. Therefore, the value of the containers should not be considered part of the manufacturing cost for excise duty calculation. The judge also agreed with the petitioner's submission that the revisional authorities did not consider the manufacturing cost definition as defined by the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the judge quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to refrain from enforcing it. The judge also stayed the operation of the order for four weeks. The decision was made without any order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings in favor of the petitioners.