Supreme Court of India
M/S GARWARE NYLONS LTD. versus PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 28 March 1995
- Judges listed
- R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 3 S.C.R. 23 · 1995 INSC 227
- Also cited as
- (1995) 3 SCC 345
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
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
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.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Jhe customs duty paid by the appellaot could be included for determining valuation for purposes of charging octroi under Rule 17(a) of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1%8 made under sub-section (2) of Section 321 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 105 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.
p. 24, margin E
The appellaot is a public limited compaoy. It maoufactured nylon and polyster yarn. Between September 1983 aod August 1984 it imported goods liable to octroi. The corporation authorities claimed that the appellaot was liable to include the customs duty paid by it in the valuation of the goods as it was a component of the value of the said goods for the purpose of Rule 17(a). The appeal filed by the appellaot before the Civil Judge failed. The order was challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court negatived the claim. Rule 17(a) is extracted below:
p. 24, margin F
"R. 17.-Provisions to determine value where octroi is Jeviable ad-valorem ·:
p. 25, margin A
(a) If the original invoice is produced by the importer and accepted by the Octroi Officer the value of the goods means the value made up of the cost price of the goods as ascertained from that invoice plus freight ·charges, carrier charges, shipping dues, insurance, excise duties, sales tax, vend fee and all other incidental charges incurred by the importer till the arrival of the goods within the octroi
p. 25, margin A
limits". Since the words 'custom duty' are not mentioned in the rule, it gave rise to an argument before the High Court and in this Court whether it could be included while determining the value under Rule 17. The High Court relying basically on the decision of this Court in Mis. Shroff & Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 347 held that even though the custom duty was not mentioned in the rule yet it was liable to be included while determining the value under rule 17. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that since the words 'custom dnty' do not find place in rule 17, they could not be included for determining valuation under the rules. Reliance was also placed on Mis. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr., JT [1989) 4 SC 229 and Mis. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax officer, [1977) 1 SCC 441 and it was urged that in case the provision in taxing statute was susceptible to two constrnctions, then the one favouring the assessee should be accepted.
p. 25, margin B
In Shroffs case (supra), it was held by this Court that countervailing duty being imposed for the purpose of compensating excise dnty, it was includible in the expression 'dnty'. The Court further held that expression 'incidental' used in the rule expand"d its ambit and extended it to such duty that was an incident of importation. It was explained that the words 'incidental charges' have a very wide meaning, particularly in the context where duties and taxes are referred to and the idea seems to be to include all items that will be taken into account by an importer as part of his cost.
p. 25, margin E
Rule 17 provides for determination of value of goods brought inside the Corporation or Municipal Board for consumption, use or sale. The use of various words in the rule widens its scope. It provides for inclusion of cost price, charges such as freight, carrier, custom duties and then all other incidental charges, dues etc. The mention of various more illustrative than exhaustive. It only indicates that expenses which are usually incurred in normal course of activity, but any incidental expenditure shall constitute goods. The rule has to be understood in broad sense. imported from outside without payment of custom duty There appears to be no reason to exclude it while determining of the goods. In any case, if duty counter-vailing could incidental charges for importation, there is no valid custom duty from it.
pp. 25–26, margin G
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. order as to costs. T.NA.
p. 26, margin C