2004 (7) TMI 93 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) - Classes of buyers - Provision in which assessment is sought - Held that - arguments of the Department has been that the assessment ought to have been made under Section 4(1)(a) and not under proviso (i) thereto at all. The submission is contrary to the factual finding of the Department itself. The departmental authorities have proceeded on the basis that the factual pre-condition for the applicability of Proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) had been fulfilled. In the circumstances and given the facts of the case we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the valuation of refrigerators sold by the assessee to different classes of buyers.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolved around the application of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, specifically in relation to the valuation of refrigerators sold by the respondent-assessee to different classes of buyers during the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Section 4(1)(a) defines the "value" of an excisable commodity based on the normal price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade, where the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration for the sale. Proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) clarifies that if goods are sold at different prices to different classes of buyers as per the normal practice of wholesale trade, then each price shall be deemed the normal price for that class of buyers.

The respondent-assessee initially sought provisional assessment based on a single assessable value for the refrigerators, but the Revenue rejected this approach. It was discovered that the respondent had three categories of buyers - Whole Sale Distributors (WSD), Sales and Service Dealers (SSD), and Only Sales Dealers (OSD) - with different prices for each category. The assessing officer determined the assessable value based on the highest price charged to OSD, which was contested by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, upholding the separate pricing for each category under the first proviso to Section 4(1)(a).

The Department argued that the assessment should have been made under Section 4(1)(a) without invoking proviso (i), contrary to the factual finding that different classes of buyers existed. However, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the factual pre-condition for the application of Proviso (i) had been met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Section 4(1)(a) and its proviso in determining the value of excisable goods sold to different classes of buyers, emphasizing the importance of factual findings and adherence to statutory provisions in excise valuation assessments.