9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6A(2) of the First Schedule to the Act during the relevant period ; (b) as would appear from the adjudication order, in the price-list filed prior to 15-9-1975, the Appellant had indicated the wholesale price at which the goods were sold through sales depots at Madras, Vijayawada and Kolhapur; (c) on or about 15-9-1975, the Appellant filed a price-list in proforma Part V meant for excisable goods sold in retail for the purpose of valuation in terms of the amended Section 4 of the Act, which was to come into effect from 1-10-1975, showing, inter-alia, selling expenses, cost of transportation, etc. apart from what was claimed to be the price of goods wholly sold in retail; (d) it was claimed that the goods in question were sold in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be determined excluding- (i) expenditure on sales establishments for canvassing orders, distribution and dispatch, etc; (ii) interest charges in extending credit facilities to retail buyers ; (iii) transportation charges for delivery ; from the declared price ? 3. It was contended before us, inter-alia, for the Appellant, that- (a) there was not one single sale effected by the Appellant in the course of wholesale trade. All the sales were effected only to the actual consumers thereof, namely, tyre vulcanisers and retreaders who retread or repair tyres. The sales were normally in small quantities without any intermediary or middleman. The orders come directly from the Appellant s customers and consequently there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holesale trade in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act subject to such deduction on account of cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no other deduction from the price was permissible to arrive at the assessable value in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court in 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) (Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Limited etc.). 5. It would appear to us on the perusal of the records and on the submissions made, that- (a) admittedly, the Appellant sold the products from three stock depots in Madras, Vijayawada and Kolhapur; (b) the sales were without exception to consumers and not to wholesale or retail stockists who could in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumption by themselves and not for resale the transaction was none other than one in wholesale trade. The distinction between an industrial consumer and an individual consumer is not one without difference. While, therefore, there can be a sale by the manufacturer in retail in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, such a sale cannot be to an industrial consumer but to an individual customer or consumer for his personal consumption and not for industrial use. The industrial consumers are a class apart from individual consumers in so far as valuation of excisable goods in terms of Section 4 of the Act is concerned; (g) looking to the pattern of sales effected by the Appellant, we have no doubt whatsoever that the prices declared, ostensibly as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
