1981 (9) TMI 119 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of assessable value under Section 4(a) vs. Section 4(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Hedge & Golay were at arm's length.
3. The applicability of the principles of natural justice in determining the assessable value.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Assessable Value under Section 4(a) vs. Section 4(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

The core issue revolves around whether the assessable value of the 'Desk Calculators' should be determined under Section 4(a) or Section 4(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The lower authorities initially applied Section 4(a), but the Government of India later held that Section 4(b) was applicable. The Karnataka High Court's single Judge quashed this decision, leading to a remand for de novo disposal. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court modified the single Judge's order, stating that the observations in paras 5 and 6 of the single Judge's order should not bind the Central Government while deciding the revision application.

The Government observed that the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Hedge & Golay were not at arm's length, and the price charged to M/s. Hedge & Golay could not be accepted under Section 4(a). Therefore, the value had to be determined under Section 4(b). The Government emphasized that the concept of value remains materially the same under both subsections, as supported by the Supreme Court's observations in the Voltas case.

2. Whether the Transactions between the Petitioner and M/s. Hedge & Golay were at Arm's Length:

The Government found that the transactions were not at arm's length. Several circumstances supported this conclusion:

- The absence of a written agreement despite significant financial commitments.
- The petitioner's complete dependence on M/s. Hedge & Golay for marketing and technical assistance.
- The unusually low price charged by the petitioner to M/s. Hedge & Golay compared to the market price.
- The price structure did not include costs for know-how, research and development, and replacements.
- The transactions conferred extra commercial advantages to M/s. Hedge & Golay.

These factors indicated that the terms of the agreement were not fair and reasonable, failing the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the Voltas case.

3. Applicability of the Principles of Natural Justice in Determining the Assessable Value:

The Government agreed with the petitioner's advocate that proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to explain their position before arriving at a final decision regarding the value under Section 4(b). This ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the lower authorities for de novo decision, with directions to adopt a method that best suits the circumstances for arriving at a fair and correct assessable value. This could involve starting with the price charged by M/s. Hedge & Golay and making suitable allowances or considering the sale price of comparable goods.

Conclusion:
The Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and directed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to dispose of the matter de novo, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The lower authorities were given the liberty to adopt an appropriate method for determining the assessable value, guided by the approach of the Valuation Rules framed with reference to the amended Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

← Previous Next →