Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise vs Bata (India) Ltd. on 20 July, 1987
A reading of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the wholesale
price which a charged is deemed to be the value for the purpose of levy of
excise duty, but the element of excise duty, sales tax or other taxes which
is included in the wholesale price is to be excluded in arriving at the
excisable value. This Section has been so construed by this Court in Asstt.
Collector of Central Excise and Ors. v. Bata India Ltd., [1996] 4 SCC 563,
and it is thus clear that when cum-duty price is charged, then in arriving
at the excisable value of the goods the element of duty which is payable
has to be excluded. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly prceeded on the
basis that the amount realised by the respondent from the sale of scrap has
to be regarded as a normal wholesale price and in determining the value on
which excise duty is payable the element of excise duty which must be
regarded as having been incorporated in the sale price, must be excluded.
There is nothing to show that once the demand was raised by the Department,
the respondent sought to recover the same from the purchaser of scrap. The
facts indicate that after the sale transaction was completed, the purchaser
was under no obligation to pay any extra amount to the seller, namely, the
respondent. In such a transaction, it is the seller who takes on the
obligation of paying all taxes on the goods sold and in such a case the
said taxes on the goods sold are to be deducted under Section 4(4)(d)(ii)
and this is precisely what has been directed by the Tribunal. There is also
nothing to show that the sale price was not cum-duty.
Hindustan Sugar Mills Etc vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 22 August, 1978
It will be useful here to refer to the observations of this Court in
Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1978] 4 SCC 271, at
page 280, as follows:
1