1984 (11) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the application of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Implementation of Notification No. 198/76-CE, dated 16-6-1976.
3. Redetermination of assessable value by including rebate retained by the appellants.
4. Statutory price fixation and its impact on assessable value.
5. Applicability of retrospective amendment by Finance Bill, 1982.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the application of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, upheld the Assistant Collector's application of Section 4 in valuing the goods, rejecting the appeal. The tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 4 could not be overruled, emphasizing that the assessable value must be determined according to the statutory provisions.

2. Implementation of Notification No. 198/76-CE, dated 16-6-1976:
The dispute arose over the implementation of Notification No. 198/76-CE, which required only 75% of the duty to be paid on goods cleared in excess of the base clearance. The Assistant Collector recalculated the base clearance for the period 5-8-1976 to 13-8-1976, resulting in a refund. However, a notice was issued demanding repayment of Rs. 53,476.37, as the benefit was not passed to consumers. The Appellate Collector ruled against the appellants, stating that Section 4 provisions could not be disregarded.

3. Redetermination of assessable value by including rebate retained by the appellants:
The sanctioned rebate of Rs. 5,28,825.07 was included in the redetermined assessable value. The appellants argued that the redetermination was incorrect as the goods were sold at a government-fixed price, which should be the only assessable price. They contended that the refund should not affect the assessable value. However, the tribunal found that the money received as a refund increased the manufacturer's benefit from the sale, thus impacting the assessable value.

4. Statutory price fixation and its impact on assessable value:
The tribunal highlighted that price fixation under statutory control is different from tariff values fixed under Section 3(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The statutory control price must be the price at which goods are sold to qualify under Section 4(1)(a)(ii). The tribunal concluded that the refund received altered the transaction's financial outcome, making the fixed price no longer the sole assessable value.

5. Applicability of retrospective amendment by Finance Bill, 1982:
The appellants argued that the retrospective amendment by Finance Bill, 1982, should not apply as the statutory price fixed for fertilizers should remain the assessable price. The tribunal, however, did not find this argument sufficient to exclude the refund from the assessable value.

Minority Judgment:
One member dissented, arguing that the statutory price should be the normal price under Section 4(1)(a)(ii), and the refund should not affect the assessable value. He emphasized that the statutory price was exclusive of excise duty, and re-determining the value to include the refund would contradict the statutory provisions.

Conclusion:
The majority judgment upheld the central excise authorities' action, rejecting the appeal. The minority view, however, supported the appellants, suggesting that the statutory price should remain the assessable value without including the rebate. The editor's comments noted that the majority judgment confused 'tariff values' with 'control prices' and ignored that the control price was exclusive of excise duty, supporting the minority view for reconsideration.

← Previous Next →