9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by it to the customer Companies at its ex-factory price. The petitioner company pays Sales Tax on these sales. The price charged by the petitioner company includes manufacturing cost and manufacturers profit. The petitioner Co. pays Income Tax on its profits from these sales. 2. In their turn, the customer companies sell the bulbs, tubes etc. to the public at rates higher than those charged by the petitioner company. The customer companies include their selling cost and selling profits. 3. In 1955 excise duty was for the first time imposed on the bulbs and tubes manufactured by the petitioner company. The duty was levied and collected on Specific basis. With effect from 1st March, 1969, the basis of the Excise Duty, was changed to ad valorem. This change was made in respect of electric bulb and fluorescent tubes only. The duty on miniature lamps continued to be levied on Specific basis . 4. Soon after this change the Excise Department asked the petitioner company to supply it the catalogue of its selling price. The petitioner company complied with it. On 4th June, 1969, the Superintendent of Central Excise, required the petitioner Company to send the price l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order dated 16th July, 1970 was decided by the Appellate Collector on 22nd March, 1973. He held that in view of the agreement the petitioner company cannot sell its product to any party other than the customer companies, that they were only manufacturing goods on account of the customer companies, that no evidence had been brought forth to the effect that the agreement for marketing their products for the above parties had been entered into at arms length and in the ordinary course of business and that the petitioner s prices were according to the voltage of the product and not according to the different brand names under which they are ultimately sold. It was held that the petitioner Company had declared that the prices indicated at which the six parties mentioned above (Namely the customer companies) market the goods and as such the determination of the value for the purposes of duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises Salt Act has to be based on the wholesale cash price at which the products are sold by the above six parties. On these findings the Appeal was dismissed. 9. The appeal against the order dated 4th December, 1971 was disposed of by the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no other person could purchase the articles whole-sale from the manufacturing company did not detract from the sales being whole-sale. If there is an actual price for the goods themselves at the time and place of sale, and if that is a whole-sale cash price, Clause (a) of Section 4 would be applicable. 14. After referring to certain High Court decisions, the Supreme Court held that the price of sales to whole-sale dealers would represent the whole-sale cash price for the purpose of Section 4 (a) of the Act even though the manufacturer were to enter into agreements with dealers for whole-sale sales of the articles manufactured on certain terms and conditions, it would not follow from that alone that the price for those sales would not be the whole sale cash price for the purposes of Section 4 (a) of the Act if the Agreements were made at terms length and in the usual course of business. 15. Adverting to the question as to what is the meaning of the term whole-sale Cash Price , the Court held that under Section 4 of the Act the real value included only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit and excludes post-manufacturing cost and profit arising from post-manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they alone would, then be the manufacturer and they alone would, in Law, be liable to pay Excise duty. The fact that the Department is treating the petitioner company as the manufacturer and making it liable for excise duty precludes it from taking the plea that the petitioner is a dummy company or a benamidar for the customer companies. It may be borne in mind that the customer companies are not share-holders of the petitioner company : they are alleged to be subsidiaries of the share-holder companies. 19. The Appellate Collector also found that the petitioner had brought forth no evidence to show that the agreements for marketing their products with the customer companies were entered into at arms length and in the ordinary course of business. This finding appears to have been recorded to distinguish the Supreme Court decision in A. K. Roy s case (Supra). The Appellate Collector has not discussed that case nor noticed that the Supreme Court observed that it was not the case of the Department that there was any secret arrangement between the whole-sale dealers and the manufacturer in respect of sales to them, or that the price of the articles was under-stated in the agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
