1980 (4) TMI 107 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - Storage of excisable goods at various depots - Rent on godowns - Advertisement expenses - Cost of packing - Corrugated fibre containers - Constitution

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value for excise duty.
2. Constitutionality of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Post-Manufacturing Expenses in the Assessable Value for Excise Duty
The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturing company, challenged the inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value for excise duty. These expenses included advertisement expenses, storage expenses, marketing and distribution expenses, and bank charges and interest recovered from wholesale buyers. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise included these expenses in the assessable value, and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise confirmed this decision.

The court examined whether "the normal price" of excisable goods, as defined in the amended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, includes post-manufacturing expenses. The court referred to several decisions, including Cibatul Limited v. Union of India, which established that excise duty should be levied only on manufacturing costs and manufacturing profits, excluding post-manufacturing costs and post-manufacturing profits.

The court concluded that:
- Storage Expenses: These are post-manufacturing expenses as they occur after the goods are fully manufactured. Therefore, they cannot be included in the assessable value.
- Marketing and Distribution Expenses: These expenses arise after the goods are ready for market and are unrelated to manufacturing. Hence, they cannot form part of the manufacturing costs.
- Bank Charges and Interest: These expenses are related to the sale of goods and not to their manufacture. Therefore, they are post-manufacturing expenses and cannot be included in the assessable value.
- Advertisement Expenses: These can be partially included in the manufacturing costs if they are incurred before the goods are manufactured to secure future markets. However, advertisement expenses incurred after the goods are manufactured are related to selling activities and should be excluded from the assessable value. The central excise authorities must apportion these expenses between manufacturing and selling activities.

Issue 2: Constitutionality of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
The petitioner argued that if post-manufacturing expenses are included in the assessable value, Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, would be ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 84 in List I and Entry 54 in List II.

The court referred to its decision in Cibatul's case, where it was held that excise duty can only be levied on the manufacturing costs and profits, and including post-manufacturing costs would render Section 4 ultra vires. The court reiterated that the assessable value should only include manufacturing costs and profits to remain within the legislative competence of Parliament.

Conclusion:
The court declared that the expenses incurred by the petitioner on storage, marketing and distribution, and bank charges cannot form part of the "normal price" under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and hence cannot be included in the assessable value for excise duty. However, advertisement expenses can be partially included in the manufacturing costs based on their relation to manufacturing activities. The central excise authorities are directed to apportion the advertisement expenses accordingly.

The court also noted that the value of corrugated fibre containers (CFC) or wooden cases used for packing should not form part of the assessable value, as conceded by the central excise authorities. The petitioner's claim for a refund related to these packing materials should be finalized within three months.

The impugned orders were quashed, and the central excise authorities were directed to re-determine the assessable value in light of this decision. If it is found that the petitioner has paid more than required, the excess amount should be refunded.

The court rejected the respondents' application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, as the case did not involve the interpretation of any Constitutional provision or raise any substantial question of law.

The court maintained the interim arrangement for two months, allowing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the difference in excise duty.

Separate Judgments:
No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case.

← Previous Next →