Supreme Court of India
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI versus GURU NANAK REFRIGERATION CORPN.
- Decided
- 27 March 2003
- Judges listed
- S.S.M. QUADRI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2003] 3 S.C.R. 57 · 2003 INSC 187
- Also cited as
- (2003) 4 SCC 334
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
p. 57, margin G
In this appeal against the final order No. 60 I of 1995-A of Customs ~ 57 Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in appeal No.E/1745/83-A dated 03.11.1995, the only point that arises for our consideration is : whethe.r the Tribunal is right in reversing the order of the Assistant Collector as confirmed by the Collector.
pp. 57–58, margin H
To appreciate the controversy in this appeal it is necessary to refer to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') as it stood during 1975-76, which, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, read as follows :- "4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise- (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with ri~ference to value, such value shall, subject
p. 58, margin A
to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be- ( a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and places of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale :
p. 58, margin C
Provided that- xxx xxx xxx (b) where the normal pric1! of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in -such
p. 58, margin D
manner as may be pr<escribed. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) For the purposes of this section,- (a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) "wholesale trade" means sales to dealers, industrial consumers, Government, local authorities and other buyers, who or which purchase their requirements otherwise than in
p. 58, margin E
retail".
p. 58, margin G
From a perusal of clause (a) of sub-section (1 ), quoted above, it is clear that the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with refere1:ce to value which shall, subject to the provisions of that section, be deemed to be normal price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal provided that the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. It is not in dispute that the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for sale. It is also the common case that the respondent-assessee sold the refrigeration machinery parts in wholesak trade at the price which was approved by the excise authorities. Where normal price within the meaning of clause (a) of subsection ( 1) is ascertainable, the provisions of clause (b) cannot be resorted to. The show cause qotice was issued to the assessee on the ground that the cost of production of the goods was more than the cost of wholesale price, so why the differential duty on the basis of costs of production of the goods should not be recovered from it. The reasoning in the show cause notice was adopted by the Assistant Collector in confirming demand as well as by the Collector in rejecting the appeal. But the Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector and allowed the appeal by the order impugned in the appeal before us by the Revenue.
pp. 58–59, margin G
A perusal of the show-cause notice shows _that it does not contain an allegation that the wholesale price to the buyers was for consideration other than the one at which it purported to be sold or that it was not at arms length. There is also no allegation that there was any_ flowback of the money from the buyer to the assessee. In the absence of these factors it cannot be contended that normal price was not ascertainable. There is no valid reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale price. It can therefore be safely be concluded that the goods were sold at the normal price within the meaning of Section 4(l)(a) of the Act In our view, the Tribunal is right in accepting the wholesale price as the correct price following the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors., v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc., (1983) 14 E.L.T. 1896. We hold that clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section (4) of the Act would not be attracted to determine the nearest ascertainable equivalent of the normal price of the goods for assessment of excise duty on the facts of this-case. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order' of the Collector. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 59, margin D