9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order on submission of price list without transport charges deduction, approval of price lists subject to inclusion of wooden packing costs, rejection of contention on transport charges deduction, pending appeal before Appellate Collector of Central Excise, show cause on fresh price lists without transport charges deduction, contention on equalized freight basis, rejection of contentions by Assistant Collector, interpretation of Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, reliance on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, quashing of impugned order and letters, mandamus to forbear from enforcing direction in letter, disposal of appeal on packing charges deduction. Analysis: The petitioner, a battery manufacturer, challenged an order directing the submission of price lists without transport charges deduction. The petitioner's price lists were accepted subject to inclusion of wooden packing costs. The petitioner excluded transport charges and secondary packing costs in the valuation for excise duty. The Assistant Collector rejected the petitioner's contentions and directed inclusion of transport charges in sale prices, alleging equalized freight basis for uniform prices. The petitioner contended that actual transport costs should be deducted based on legal precedents. The pending appeal on packing charges deduction was highlighted, and the petitioner's right to deduction of transportation costs was emphasized based on legal interpretations and precedents. The Assistant Collector's order was challenged, arguing against the reopening of the approved transportation charges deduction. Legal contentions were presented regarding the proper interpretation of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules and the finality of approved price lists. The petitioner's entitlement to transportation charges deduction was asserted, and the impugned order seeking to reopen the determination was deemed unlawful. The judgment quashed the Assistant Collector's order and directed a writ of mandamus to forbear from enforcing the direction in the letter. The appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal on packing charges deduction within six months in accordance with legal principles. The judgment concluded by making the rule absolute to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. A certified copy of the order was to be provided expeditiously upon application. The detailed legal analysis covered the challenges to the order, contentions on transport charges deduction, reliance on legal precedents, interpretation of relevant rules, and the final directives of the judgment regarding quashing the impugned order and letters, and the disposal of the pending appeal.
|
