1986 (11) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining the value of excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 based on exemption notifications issued under Rule 8.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of determining the value of excisable goods, specifically cigarettes, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, based on exemption notifications issued under Rule 8. The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, challenged the method of calculating excise duty when exemptions were in place. The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the Act, such as Section 4 and Rule 8, which govern the calculation of excise duty based on the wholesale cash price of the commodity. It highlights the conflict in interpretation among different High Courts regarding the inclusion of exemption notifications in determining the assessable value.

The judgment refers to a previous decision by one of the judges, which held that exemption notifications should not be considered while determining the value of excisable goods. This decision was based on the language of Section 4 and the notifications issued under Rule 8. The judgment also mentions conflicting views from other High Courts on this matter, indicating a lack of uniformity in interpretation across jurisdictions.

The crux of the judgment lies in the retrospective amendment introduced by the Parliament through the Finance Act, 1982. The Explanation added to Section 4 clarified that the effective duty of excise payable on goods should be considered for determining the value, rather than the duty payable under the First Schedule. The judgment upholds the validity and clarity of this Explanation, emphasizing the need to give effect to the legislative intent expressed through the plain language of the amendment.

Furthermore, the judgment dismisses the argument that applying the new formula for calculating excise duty would lead to unequal consequences. It notes the absence of substantial evidence or arguments supporting this claim in the writ petitions. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of the retrospective amendment, stating that the petitioners cannot claim the relief sought in the writ petitions due to the clarity and applicability of the Amendment Act from 1-10-1975. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs, affirming the validity and enforceability of the retrospective amendment in determining the excise duty payable on excisable goods.