1996 (5) TMI 85 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the benefit of exemption given to footwear can be claimed by the manufacturer even where the wholesale price of the footwear exceeds the limit of the exemption specified in the notification? Held that - The notification by exempting footwear upto the value of ₹ 60 from duty of excise has not removed footwear from the list of excisable goods in the first Schedule. It has in effect reduced the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent payable on such footwear upto the value of ₹ 60 to nil. The assessee has adopted a scheme which can easily be seen through. After valuing the footwear at less than ₹ 60.00, he has fixed the price at above ₹ 60.00. He is entitled to make as much profit as he can. But he has tried to claim deduction of a part of the profit as excise duty payable for the goods. In order to claim this deduction, the assessee will have to show that the value' of the goods became more than ₹ 60.00 per pair because of inclusion of excise duty. If that cannot be done, there is no question of deducting any duty payable on the goods manufactured by the assessee. The conundrum spoken of by Mr. Shanti Bhushan does not exist. Once the principle underlying the mechanism of valuation of excisable goods is borne in mind, this becomes a straightforward case. No intriguing conundrum perplexes our mind. We can easily behold what lies behind the assessee's scheme. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the benefit of exemption given to footwear can be claimed by the manufacturer if the wholesale price exceeds the exemption limit specified in the notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption Eligibility Based on Assessable Value:

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of exemption for footwear can be claimed by the manufacturer when the wholesale price exceeds the specified exemption limit. The court emphasized that if the assessable value calculated according to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act falls within or below the limit set by the notification, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.

2. Notification and Exemption Limit:

The notification under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, originally exempted footwear valued at Rs. 5/- per pair from excise duty. This limit was increased over time, and at the material time, the exemption was for footwear valued up to Rs. 60/- per pair.

3. Contention on Deduction of Excise Duty:

The respondent argued that if excise duty was payable, it should be deducted from the wholesale price to determine the assessable value. This would ensure that shoes qualifying for exemption due to lower value would not be unfairly taxed. The respondent illustrated this with a chart showing how deducting a 10% duty from prices slightly above Rs. 60/- would bring the value within the exemption limit.

4. Controversy on Price Categories:

The court noted that there was no dispute for footwear priced at Rs. 56.00, Rs. 58.00, or Rs. 60.00, which were clearly exempt. Similarly, there was no dispute for footwear priced at Rs. 68.00, Rs. 70.00, or Rs. 72.00, which were not exempt. The controversy was for prices in the range of Rs. 62.00, Rs. 64.00, or Rs. 66.00, where the respondent argued that deducting the duty would bring the value within the exemption limit.

5. Rejection of Contention on Deduction:

The court rejected the respondent's contention, stating that the normal price charged by the manufacturer at the time and place of removal to the wholesaler is treated as the value of the goods. The normal wholesale price, which includes the cost of production, estimated profit, and taxes, is the value on which excise duty is levied. The court emphasized that if the wholesale price does not include any duty, no deduction can be made.

6. Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d):

The court explained that Section 4(4)(d) of the Act excludes the amount of duty of excise from the value of goods only if such duty is actually payable. If no duty is payable, nothing is deducted from the wholesale price. The court cited the Hindustan Polymers case to support this interpretation.

7. Manufacturer's Pricing Mechanism:

The court noted that the manufacturer must submit a price list to the excise authority before removing goods from the factory. The price includes costs, planned profit, and taxes. If the value of the footwear was Rs. 60.00 or less, no excise duty was payable, and the price should not have been set above Rs. 60.00.

8. Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii):

The court referred to the Explanation added by Act 14 of 1982, which clarifies that the amount of duty of excise payable includes the effective duty under the Act and any other Central Acts. This means that any notification granting exemption must be fully considered in determining the duty payable.

9. Anomalous Situation and Consumer Impact:

The court highlighted that accepting the respondent's argument would create an anomaly where the manufacturer could sell footwear above Rs. 60.00 per pair and still claim exemption, leading to consumers paying more while the manufacturer enjoys undue profit.

10. Rejection of Reliance on Bata Shoe Co. Case:

The court dismissed the reliance on the Bata Shoe Co. case, noting that Section 4 had undergone significant changes since that decision, and the concept of effective duty of excise was not present at that time.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment dated 5th March 1993 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was set aside. The court concluded that the manufacturer could not claim the benefit of the exemption notification if the wholesale price exceeded Rs. 60.00 per pair, as no duty was payable on footwear valued at Rs. 60.00 or less.

← Previous Next →