9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit given to Rallis India. Upon the said products the first petitioners affix name plates bearing the Rallis India brand name. There is no affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents controverting the statements made in paragraph 3 of the petition. 2. In respect of the excise duty payable, the first petitioners have filed a price list showing the price paid by Rallis India to them as the assessable value of the said products. On 11th June 1974 the first petitioners received a notice to show cause why they should not be required to make payment of what was described as 'short levy' of excise duty in the sum of Rs. 1,24,473.35/- in respect of 6,057 grinders-cum-mixers cleared during the period from 12th June 1973 to 31st October 1973. The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The first respondent observed that, in law, the word 'distributor' was understood as a person or a firm who distributed the goods of a particular manufacturer and not one who bought the goods from the manufacturer, like a whole-sale dealer. A distributor, therefore, stood on an entirely different footing from a whole-sale dealer. The price at which the goods were given to the distributor was not the whole-sale cash price contemplated under Section 4. This price had to be determined on the basis of the value at which the sole distributor sold the goods subsequently to various whole-sale dealers in the open market. In view of this the price charged by Rallis India to whole-sale dealers was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may reach the consumer after a series of wholesale transactions. It was the first immediate contact between the manufacturer and the trade that was made decisive for determining the wholesale cash price which was to be the measure of the value of the goods for the purpose of excise. The second or subsequent price, even though, on wholesale basis, was not material. There could be no doubt that where the manufacturer sold the goods manufactured by him in wholesale to a wholesale dealer at arms length and in the usual course of business, the wholesale cash price charged by him to the wholesale dealer would represent the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of excise. That would be the wholesale cash price for which the goods were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the goods on payment of a commercial price, from the manufacturer and the transaction in effection was a sole, such a buyer even though a kind of distributor was different from the distributor who acted as an agent of or on behalf of the manufacturer. In such a case the distributor was in fact the wholesale buyer and the property and the goods passed such a buyer. It is difficult to see how this judgment furthers the respondents' case. It is averred in the petition and, indeed, has been averred at all the times by the first petitioners before the authorities that they sold their products to Rallis India on an outright basis in a arms length transaction. There is no statement by the authorities which disputes this. There is no affidavit- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
