9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned circular/order No. 24/14/93 dated 31st December 1993. 2. Legality of regional discounts/town commissions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Summary: Issue I: Validity of the Impugned Circular The petitioner, a manufacturer of white cement, challenged the circular/order No. 24/14/93 dated 31st December 1993 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs u/s 37-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The circular directed the petitioner to clear goods on a uniform value applicable for the State of Rajasthan, disallowing different prices and discounts for different States/Union Territories. The petitioner argued that the circular was violative of Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. Issue II: Legality of Regional Discounts/Town Commissions The impugned circular stated that "wholesale dealers cannot be considered as belonging to different classes simply because they are located in different towns or cities or regions" and disallowed regional discounts for excise purposes. The petitioner contended that regional discounts were necessary due to geographical, regional, and commercial considerations, and that Section 4(1)(a) of the Act recognized different patterns of discounts for different classes of buyers. Court's Analysis and Decision: 1. The court referred to previous judgments, including those of the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which recognized regional discounts as valid under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The court noted that regional discounts were given based on various factors such as local taxes, freight, and market conditions, and were not induced by extraneous considerations. 2. The court held that the impugned circular was contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) proviso (i) of the Act, which allows different discounts for different classes of buyers in accordance with the normal practice of wholesale trade. The court emphasized that the Board could not mandate uniform discounts across all regions, as this would deviate from the statutory provisions. 3. The court concluded that the circular u/s 37B of the Act, which disallowed regional discounts, was invalid. The court set aside the impugned circular to the extent it disallowed regional discounts, allowing the petition and making the rule absolute without any order as to costs.
|
