9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 794 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the charges of containers provided by assessee for transportation of gases are liable to be taken into account for determination of value for the purpose of levy of duty in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended with effect from 1.7.2000. Held that - Section 4(1)(a) prior to the substitution was considered by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. 1983 (10) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . While considering the interplay between Section 3 and 4. In Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. 2004 (9) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the scope and purport of Section 3 of the Act, Section 4(1)(a) as substituted with effect from 1.7.2000 and Section 4(3)(d) defining transaction value came up for consideration before another Three Judges Bench of this Court. Though in the backdrop of different factual scenarios, two Coordinate Benches (Three Judges) have taken what would appear to be contrary views with regard to purport and effect and the interconnection between Section 3 and 4 ibid. Therefore, we are of the view that another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views expressed in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. Rather, the questions referred should receive consideration of a Larger Bench for which purpose the connected papers may now be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. - Appeal disposed of
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the definition of "Transaction Value" in Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 - Determination of whether charges for containers provided to customers should be included in the value for levy of duty under Section 4 - Clarification on the interplay between Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court was tasked with considering the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically focusing on the definition of "Transaction Value" and its relationship with Section 3 of the Act. The Court was presented with questions regarding the scope and application of these provisions in the context of determining the assessable value for the levy of duty. 2. The case involved manufacturers of industrial gases charging customers for containers used in transportation. The key issue revolved around whether these container charges should be factored into the value for duty calculation under Section 4 of the Act, as amended from 1.7.2000. The respondents treated these charges as separate income, not reflected in sale invoices for duty computation purposes. 3. Section 3 of the Act serves as the charging section, while Section 4 governs the valuation of excisable goods for duty imposition. The Court examined the amended provisions of Section 4(1)(a) and the definition of "Transaction Value" under Section 4(3)(d) to determine the appropriate methodology for assessing duty based on the actual prices paid or payable for the goods sold. 4. The Court referred to past judgments, including Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., to elucidate the distinction between the charging mechanism under Section 3 and the valuation framework under Section 4. The Court highlighted the need to maintain a nexus between the levy and the valuation measure, emphasizing that the value determination should align with the essential character of the levy. 5. Additionally, the Court analyzed Commissioner of Central Excise v. Acer Ltd., where the inclusion of software value in the assessable value of computers was debated. The judgment underscored the differentiation between goods like computers and software for duty calculation purposes, emphasizing that software, even when part of hardware, retains its distinct identity for duty assessment. 6. Given the conflicting interpretations by different benches on the interrelation of Sections 3 and 4, the Court refrained from expressing a definitive opinion. Instead, the Court recommended the matter to be deliberated by a Larger Bench to resolve the divergent views presented in the previous judgments, seeking guidance from the Chief Justice of India for further direction.
|
