1990 (10) TMI 76 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods for excise duty assessment, determination of assessable value based on sale price, interpretation of related person under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act.

In the judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the petition was filed challenging the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise regarding the classification of goods and determination of assessable value for excise duty assessment. The petitioner, a proprietary firm registered as a Private Limited Company, manufactured wireless receiving sets falling under Tariff Item 33A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner sold 3000 transistor radios to another company after manufacturing them using their own resources. The Assistant Collector held that the excise duty should be based on the price at which the radios were sold by the purchasing company, not the petitioner's factory gate price. The petitioner argued that this decision contradicted a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which was accepted by the court.

The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the sale by the petitioner to the purchasing company should be considered for excise duty assessment, not the subsequent sale price by the purchasing company. The Assistant Collector's conclusion that the normal price should be based on the price at which the radios were sold in wholesale trade was deemed incorrect. The court clarified that the term "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act refers to individuals or entities with a direct or indirect interest in each other's business. In this case, there was no such relationship between the petitioner and the purchasing company, making the Assistant Collector's decision unsustainable.

Consequently, the court set aside the Assistant Collector's order and directed the assessable value to be determined based on the price at which the radios were sold by the petitioner to the purchasing company. The Assistant Collector was instructed to approve the price and classification lists submitted by the petitioner. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring no costs to be awarded. Additionally, the bank guarantees provided by the petitioner were discharged following the court's decision.