9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (sic) with its registered office and Headquarters situated at Jaipur. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of petitioner No. 1 company. In this petition the challenge is made to the levy of excise duty on the product manufactured by the petitioners, namely, woollen felt as an excisable item under Tariff Item No. 68 of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Earlier the petitioner-company was being charged excise duty on woollen felt under Item 21 as if it was a woollen fabric. It was challenged on the ground that woollen felt did not fall under the term woollen fabric. The relief in the present petition is claimed in the form of exemptions as granted by the above-said Item No. 68 particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total value of all excisable goods cleared by him or on his behalf in the preceding financial year had exceeded rupees thirty lakhs. Provided further that the exemption contained in this Notification shall apply to the first clearances for home consumption by or on behalf of the manufacturer referred to in this Notification, from one or more factories up to a value not exceeding rupees thirty lakhs during a financial year subsequent to 1977-78 and up to a value not exceeding rupees twenty-four lakhs during the period commencing on the 18th day of June, 1977, and ending on 31st day of March, 1978. <?xml:namespace prefix = st2 /> Explanation I. - For the purposes of determining the value of any capital investment, only the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the buyers and the goods were received back. Rs. 1,05,938.57 Bill discount (being cash discount) allowed to one party only. Rs. 1,60,109.00 Bill discount @ 5% on sales as per agreement." 4.The Assistant Collector examined the matter and considered the contentions of the petitioners which were raised in the following manner : "Shri N.K. Mishra, Chief Accountant of M/s. S. Zoraster Co. Ltd., Jaipur appeared on behalf of the unit and further argued about the above deduction as below: Rs. 2,39,966.50. This relates to the value of goods which were despatched to the customers in year 1978-79 but were not received back in the same year. Since the goods have not been received back the question of deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the case was heard. From the perusal of the sale vouchers issued by the unit, it will appear that the party has charged full value of the goods including the commission which was to be paid to M/s. A.K. Shah, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur and had also paid sales tax as per invoices value. Thus it will appear no amount has been deducted in form of discount at the time of sale of the goods. Even in the agreement dated 30th June, 1973 produced by the unit para 6 save that in consideration of the services to be rendered the company shall pay a commission @ 5% in net sale. Thus the commission paid by the unit to M/s. A.K. Shah, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur is in form of a remuneration to them for the services rendered and thus this payment cannot be abette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch reliance in the context of the nature of Central Excise. It is well established that in order to attract excise duty. It is not necessary that the articles must have actually been sold, that would equate to a sales tax, whereas excise duty is a tax on manufacture. Therefore, the argument that the appellant's goods were not actually sold would not in any way exclude it from the levy of Excise duty once it is held to be an excisable item. As regards the deductions on account of cash discount in respect of M/s. A.K. Shah, as also regarding the bill discount at 5% allowed to M/s. Rajasthan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. consideration of their admissibility have to be seen in the light of criteria for allowing such a discount within the ambit of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consideration could not be relevant for consideration and as the parties were also unable to produce any document/agreement in support of the cash discount given to M/s. A.K. Shah the amounts could not be validly permitted to be deducted from the amount for the gross sale price. There is no infirmity in the findings given by all the Authorities to the effect that the Central Excise is levied on manufacture and not on sale of excisable goods and the department was concerned with the levy of Central Excise duty till the stage of clearance from the factory gate. Once the goods were cleared from the factory, the Department had nothing to do with such goods or how they were utilised by the parties and to whom they were sold or supplied. The qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
