Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (8) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ould have been filed in Part III and in accordance with proviso (ii) to Section 4(1)(a) as the subject medicines were covered by Drug (Price Control) Order, 1979. For such goods, in terms of Notification 245/83, duty was to be charged on the retail price specified in the price list issued under the aforesaid order allowing a discount of 15% thereon. The Assistant Collector confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,03,133.69 vide his Order-in-Original dated 7-4-1987. This was challenged by the respondent successfully before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who, vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 8-6-1988, set it aside. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the respondent filed two refund claims for Rs. 1,55,10 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on whether an assessee is compelled by law to avail the benefit of exemption Notification 245/83 and forgo the facility of deduction of discounts from the wholesale price to arrive at the assessable value was considered. It was noted that, according to proviso (iii) of the Notification, the benefit of exemption thereunder was allowable only if the manufacturer claimed the exemption in respect of all the medicines cleared by him, the retail price of which was specified in the price list [issued under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979]. It was observed that the said proviso (iii) would indicate that exemption was not mandatory in the sense that every manufacturer was compelled to avail the notification. The proviso made it a matter of vol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt does not arise as proviso (ii) does not provide for any deduction but specifically lays down that the price statutorily fixed shall be the assessable value. The finding of Collector (Appeals) that proviso (i) does not, in any way, prohibit the deduction permitted under Section 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii) has been assailed on the ground that the said proviso prohibits the deduction of any trade discount from the assessable value fixed under a statute. Under the Notification, it is urged, Patent or Proprietary medicines would be assessed in wholesale at the retail prices (underlining, for emphasis, ours) of the medicines specified in the price list issued under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979. 6. We have in the preceding paragraph extract .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... larly the proviso (ii) in question and the exemption Notification. An exemption Notification cannot have the effect of casting a heavier burden of duty than that under Section 4 of the Act itself. An exemption Notification is issued only for the purpose of reducing the duty burden determined under the said Section. The subject Notification provided for the exemption of duty in excess of the amount of duty calculated on the basis of the value of medicines arrived at after allowing the discount of 15% on their retail price specified in the price list issued under Para 19 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The first proviso lays down that the exemption shall be allowed only if no o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates