1987 (6) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid products after adding to the prices for the said products charged by the petitioners to the said Agents, various other things including their profits, etc. 2. It appears that earlier the petitioners had to file certain writ petitions with regard to the assessment of their products under the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") read with Item No. 14-E of the first schedule to the said Act. In that it has been held that the petitioners have made bona fide sales to the distributors and those sales were not for extra commercial considerations, and, therefore, the basis of the excise duty on the said products should be on the basis of the prices fixed by the pet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e products and not on the basis of the ex-factory prices fixed by the petitioners when they sold their products to the said Agents. Then they claimed refund of the said excise duty paid by them under protest and in all they have claimed three refunds which they have set out in para 7 of the petition and in all they claimed a total of Rs. 1,85,241.15 paise from the respondents. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, rejected all such applications for refund on the basis that the claim was not tenable as the petitioners were following the procedure and have filed a price list on their own and have not disputed the price list at any time. Against such rejection the petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate Collector of Cent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ision which came into effect from October 1, 1975. Therefore, there is no justification whatsoever for the department to insist upon the list of prices charged by the sole selling Agents. 5. Apart from this, the appellate Collector has clearly gone on a wrong basis that he referred to the notification dated October 8, 1966 which has only relevance to the extent of the prices charged by the petitioners and has no relevance whatsoever with regard to the prices charged by the sole selling Agents. In other words the petitioners were liable to pay, whatever duty they had to pay, only on the basis of the ex-factory prices charged by them and not on the basis of the prices charged by the sole selling Agents. 6. If that is so the petitioners ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X