9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue to the first respondent. At that time the petitioner was having two sets of prices, one applicable to bulk purchasers and another applicable to retail dealers who purchased small quantities. Messrs Philips India Ltd., is the only concern which was buying in large quantities while others were buying in small quantities. The first respondent, however, discarded both the sets of prices and gave a provisional approval on 8-3-1969 at the prices at which Messrs Philips India Ltd. sold the water heaters to small dealers who purchased from them in small quantities. On 26-8-1969, however, the first respondent gave a final approval under Sec. 4(a) accepting the set of prices given by the petitioners applicable to retail dealers. In that letter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This modification has been made effective from 8-3-1969, the date of the first provisional approval. The first respondent by another order dated 8-1-1970 stated that order dated 3-1-1970, modified also the earlier order dated 17-8-1969. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 26-2-1970, as against the said two orders dated 3-1-1970 and 8-1-1970. 4. On 17-1-1970, the petitioner wrote to the first respondent pointing out that Messrs Philips India Ltd. had already stopped dealing in water heaters and that the last purchase by them was on 14-11-1969 and requesting for refixation of the assessable value on the prices the petitioner sold to the wholesale dealers who buy from them. On 19-1-1970, the first respondent gave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (1) the cost of special packing and (2) quantitative discounts while fixing the assessable values. He also held that the assessments during the physical clearance period 8-3-1969 to the 30-7-1969, could not be revised as they were time-barred. He however fixed the assessable value of the goods cleared between 30-7-1969 and 14-11-1969, at the price at which Messrs Philips India Ltd. sold to dealers who purchased from them on the ground that during that period most of the sales of the petitioners were to Philips lndia Ltd. He also held that the quantitative discounts should be allowed only on those clearances made for sales to dealers who actually got the quantitative discounts that the assessable value should be assessed at the price after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, rejecting quantitative discount during the period 8-3-1969 to 3-1-1970 on the basis that Messrs Philips India Ltd. is a favoured buyer and that 90 per cent. of the sales are only to Messrs Philips India Ltd. The petitioner also contends that the respondents are in error in accepting the quantitative discount after 3-1-1970 only for those clearances where quantitative discounts were actually given and that the direction given by the respondents to pay the difference in duty if the dealers do not buy the agreed quantity within the agreed period due to any reason is not based on any provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or the Rules framed thereunder. 9. In A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. — 1977 E.L.T. (J 177), the scope of the expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the expression 'wholesale cash price' the Supreme Court referred to the said earlier decision and stated - "The value of the goods for the purpose of excise must take into account only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit and it must not be loaded with post-manufacturing cost or profit arising from post manufacturing operation. The price charged by the manufacturer for sale of the goods in wholesale would, therefore, represent the real value of the goods for the purpose of assessment to excise duty. If the price charged by the wholesale dealer who purchases the goods from the manufacturer and sells them in wholesale to another dealer were taken at the value of the goods, it would include not only the manufacturing cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable value should be taken to have been determined correctly by the authorities below. 12. Though the third respondent has accepted the petitioner's case that it is entitled to deduct the quantitative discounts given by it, it directed that it should pay the difference in duty if the dealers do not buy the full agreed quantity within the agreed period due to any reason. It is argued that the quantitative discount is an accepted form of trade discount and hence it should be deducted in fixing the assessable value for all clearances. However, it is found that the third respondent has, while allowing the quantitative discounts, stated that the quantitative discount being given on the basis of the quantity purchased, the purchaser cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
