1990 (12) TMI 99 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification exempting excise duty on wrapping and packing papers.
2. Allegation of short-levy of excise duty by the petitioner.
3. Appeal against the order of Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector.
4. Explanation to Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Precedents on the interpretation of the effective duty of excise for determining the value of excisable goods.
6. Decision on the petition in light of the Explanation and previous court decisions.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of wrapping and packing papers falling under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was subject to a Notification exempting duty on specified quantities of paper cleared during a financial year. The exemption varied based on the quantity cleared, with percentages specified in the Table to the Notification.

2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging short-levy of excise duty for the clearance of paper between specific dates. The petitioner was accused of charging a higher price than the assessable value approved, resulting in a lower duty payment compared to the actual rate.

3. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for short-levied duty, leading the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Collector. The appeal was allowed with the condition that valuation should consider the actual price charged by the petitioner, deducting the duty element paid and other admissible deductions.

4. The Explanation to Section 4(4) of the Act, added by the Finance Act, 1982, defined the "value" of excisable goods concerning packing costs, duty of excise, and trade discounts. This Explanation aimed to clarify the computation of excise duty payable on goods.

5. Court decisions, including B.K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, and Assistant Collector v. A.P. Paper Mills, were referenced regarding the determination of the effective duty of excise for value computation. In light of these precedents and the Explanation, the petitioner chose not to pursue the petition.

6. Considering the Explanation and previous court rulings, the petition was deemed not sustainable, leading to the discharge of the rule with costs. The decision was made based on the understanding of the effective duty of excise and the valuation of excisable goods as per the legal provisions and interpretations provided.