Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LIMITED
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1984
BENCH:
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
BENCH:
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1772 1985 SCR (1) 523
1984 SCALE (2)282
CITATOR INFO :
R 1990 SC 974 (5)
ACT:
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, Section 4-Trade
discount or allowance-Whether Commissions allowed to selling
agents under an agreement an agreement are "trade
discounts"-Whether the fertilizers manufactured by the
appellant fall within the meaning of "mixed fertilizers"
entitling exemption from excise duty, under Notification No.
23/70 dated 1.3.1970.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant carries on business as manufacturers of
diverse kinds of fertilizers at its factory at
Vishakhapatnam. The appellant appointed M/s E.I.D. Parry
Limited and M/s Rallis India Ltd. as their selling agents
and entered into agreements with them for sale of
fertilizers manufactured by the appellant on terms and
conditions mentioned in the agreements entered into by the
appellant with the selling agents. Under the terms of the
agreements the selling agents were appointed by the
appellant and were entrusted with the task of arranging the
sale of the fertilizers for and on behalf of the appellant
in consideration of receiving a commission of three and a
half percent calculated on the net realisable value, that
is, upon the gross sales realisation less excise duty and
sales tax, freight expenses and discount and rebate This
commission is the remuneration paid by the appellant to the
selling agents for discharging the obligation of the selling
agents under the agreement of selling the fertilizers. In
the absence of any such agreement the appellant would have
been obliged to carry on the activity of organising the
sales of its product on its own.
Based on a Notification issued by the Government of
India bearing No. 23/70 dated 1.3.1970, the appellant, in
respect of the fertilizers known as "Gromor N.P.K. 14-35-
14" claimed exemption from the imposition of excise duty, as
it is a mixed fertilizers qualifying for exemption. The
appellant also claimed deduction of the selling agency
commission paid to its selling agents for sale of
fertilizers manufactured by it as trade discount in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
matter of computation of excise duty payable on the
fertilizers manufactured by the appellant. The claims on
both these accounts were disallowed by the Assistant
Collector whose decisions were upheld by the Appellate
Collector. Aggrieved by the decisions of the authorities
concerned, the appellant filed Writ Petitions in the High
Court. The High Court by its common judgment refused to
entertain the claims of the appellant under these two heads
and dismissed all the Writ Petitions filed by the appellant
in the High Court. Hence the appeals with Special Leave
granted by this Court.
524
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
^
HELD: 1: 1. The fertilizers manufactured by the
appellant in respect of which a claim for exemption under
the Notification No. 23 of 1970 dated 1.3.1970 is made, is
not mixed fertilizers within the meaning and scope of the
Notification, since the process of manufacture of N.P.K. 14-
35-14 brings into existence several other substances and
once again utilises them in the process treating one
substance with the other. [532B-C]
1:2. The Explanation added to the Notification also
forms a part of the Notification Itself. The notification
has to be construed as a whole and in properly interpreting
the Notification, the Explanation which has been added to
the Notification cannot be ignored. The question as to
whether the Explanation seeks to control the operation or
the effect of the Notification is indeed immaterial, as the
Explanation purports neither to control nor to alter but
only seeks to explain. What the Explanation provides is not
in any way in conflict with or contrary to what the
Notification provides. [531G-H]
1: 3. A wrong decision by the Excise Authorities in
favour of any particular party allowing the benefit of the
Notification under similar circumstances to a rival company
does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the
basis of that wrong decision.[532B]
2: 1. The amount of commission paid to the selling
agents is not a trade discount within the meaning of the
Explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act,
1944 and does not qualify for deduction in determination of
the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of
imposition of excise duty, though it is possible that in a
given case, payment of what is termed as commission may,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case be in
the nature of trade allowance. But every kind of trade
allowance does not necessarily qualify for deduction in
assessment of excise duty. Here the agreements make it clear
that the commission paid to the selling agents is not a
trade discount given either to the wholesale buyer or to the
retail buyer. It is not given to the consumer or the trader.
The commission paid on the basis of the agreement to the
selling agents by way of remuneration for services rendered
by the agent cannot by any process of reasoning be said to
be trade discount payable or paid at the time of removal of
the goods from the factory or any other premises of
manufacture or production for delivery at the place of
manufacture or production. [534F-H; 535A]
M.C.V.S. Arunachala Nadar Etc. v. The State of Madras
and Ors. [1959] Suppl. 1 SCR 92; In Re: Licensed
Victualler’s Mutual Trading Association Exparte Audain
[1889] (42) Law Reports Chencery Division 1; discussed and
held inapplicable.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1373 to
1376 of 1976.
525
Appeals by Special leave from the judgment and Order
dated the 24th September, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1400 to 1403 of 1976.
AND
Civil Appeal Nos.683-686/77, 1062-1064 of 1977, 885 to
890 of 1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 31st Day of
January, 1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 2898, 2940, 2946, 2948, 2899, 2900, 2904,
2901, 2902, 2903, 2941, 2947 and 2961 of 1976.
Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, Talat Ansari, Kamal Mehta
and Ms. Rainu Wallia for the Appellant.
Ms. A. Subhashini and Girish Chandra for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. These appeals and also the
Special Leave Petitions arise out Writ Petitions filed by
the Appellant as the petitioners in the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court
disposed of all the writ petitions by one common judgment.
For reasons stated in the judgment the High Court dismissed
all the writ petitions. This Court granted special leave to
the appellant to file appeals against the dismissal of the
writ petitions by the High Court and also directed some of
the Special Leave Petitions to be heard along with the
appeals. As all the writ petitions were dismissed by one
common judgment delivered by the High Court, we propose to
dispose of all these matters by this judgment.
Two questions fall for determination in these appeals.
The first question is whether on a true construction of the
Notification No. 23/70 dated 1.3.1970 issued by the
Government of India, the appellant is entitled to claim
exemption from the imposition of excise duty on fertilizers
which, according to the appellant, are mixed fertilizers
manufactured by the appellant. The other question is whether
the amount of commission paid by the appellant to its
selling agents should be deducted as trade allowance in
computing the value of the goods for assessment of excise
duty.
526
It may be noted that some of these appeals are
concerned with the first question, namely the exemption
under the Notification No. 23/70 dated 1.3.1970, and in the
remaining appeals the question of exclusion of the
commission paid to the selling agent is involved. Same
questions are involved in the special leave petitions.
The broad facts about which there does not appear to be
any serious dispute may be briefly noticed.
The appellant carries on business as manufacturers of
diverse kinds of fertilizers at the factory situated at
Vishakhapatnam. The appellant considered that it would be
advisable to entrust the sale of its products to
organisations with experience in the sale of fertilizers,
instead of the appellant itself organising sales of the
fertilizers manufactured. Accordingly, the appellant
appointed M/s. E.I.D. Parry Limited and M/s. Rallis India
Ltd, as their selling agents and entered into agreements
with them for sale of fertilizers manufactured by the
appellant on terms and conditions mentioned in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
agreements entered into by the appellant with the selling
agents. Under the terms of the agreements the selling agents
were appointed by the appellant and the selling agents were
entrusted with the task of arranging the sale of the
fertilisers for and on behalf of the appellant in
consideration of receiving a commission of 3 1/2% calculated
on the net realisable value, i.e., upon the gross sales
realisation less excise duty and sales tax, freight expenses
and discount and rebate. This commission is the remuneration
paid by the appellant to the selling agents for discharging
the obligation of the selling agents under the agreement of
selling the fertilisers. In the absence of any such
agreement the appellant would have been obliged to carry on
the activity of organising the sales of its products on its
own.
The Central Government issued a notification bearing
No. 25/70 dated 1.3.70 which reads as follows:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule
(1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the
Central Government hereby exempts mixed fertilizers,
falling under item No. 14HH of the First Schedule to
the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)
manufactured with the aid of power, from two or more
fertilizers on all of which the appropriate amount of
the duty of excise or, as the case may be, the
additional duty under section 2 A of the Indian
527
Tariff Act, 1943 (32 of 1934), has already been paid,
from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.
Explanation: For the purpose of this notification,
the term ’mixed fertilizers’ means mixtures of
fertilizers’ containing more than one nutrient
(nitrogen, phosphate or potash) and does not include
single nutrient fertilizers like super phosphate
manufactured from rock phosphate."
On the basis of this notification the appellant had
asked for exemption from the imposition of excise duty on
fertilisers manufactured by it, claiming such fertilisers to
be mixed fertilisers within the meaning of this
Notification. The appellant had also claimed deduction of
the selling agency commission paid by the appellant to its
selling agents for sale of the fertilisers manufactured by
the appellant as trade discount in the matter of computation
of excise duty payable on the fertilisers manufactured by
the appellant. The claims on both these accounts were
disallowed by the Assistant Collector whose decisions were
upheld by the Appellate Collector. Aggrieved by the
decisions of the authorities concerned, the appellant filed
writ petitions in the High Court. As we have earlier
observed, the High Court by its common judgment refused to
entertain the claims of the appellant under these two heads
and dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the appellant
in the High Court. Against the decision and judgment of the
High Court disallowing these claims these appeals with
special leave granted by this Court have been filed by the
appellant.
The case of the appellant in support of its claim for
exemption under the Notification may be indicated. The claim
is made in respect of the Fertiliser known as ’Gromor N.P.K.
14-35-14’ which, according to the appellant, is a mixed
fertiliser qualifying for relief under the Notification. The
petitioner makes the case that Gromor N.P.K. 14-35-14 is
manufactured with the aid of power mixing two imported
fertilisers, namely, Rock Phosphate and Muriatic of Potash
on which the appellant had paid proper duty. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
manufacturing process of the said fertiliser consists of
treating Rock Phosphate with Sulfuric Acid which produces
Phosphoric Acid. When such Phosphoric Acid is treated with
Ammonia, Mono and Di-Ammonium Phosphate in Slurry form comes
into existence. To this slurry, Muriatic of Potash is added.
Thereafter the said mixed fertiliser comes into existence.
During the said process, a small quantity of Ammonium
Sulphate is formed, but it is neither possible to
528
separate it nor is it possible to use it, as it is mixed
with the other ingredients. According to the appellant, Mono
and Bi-Ammonium Phosphate in Slurry form cannot be used as
fertilisers for the reason that they are highly concentrated
and in Slurry Form. The contention is that since Gromor
N.P.K. 14-35-14 is manufactured with the aid of power from
the two fertilisers, it qualifies for exemption under the
Notification. In Support of the contention that the
fertiliser Gromor N.P.K. 14-35-14 comes within the scope of
the exemption under the notification, Mr. Setalvad, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has
argued that on a plain reading of the language used in the
Notification this fertiliser clearly comes within the ambit
of the Notification and satisfies all the requirements laid
down in the Notification for exemption under the said
Notification. Mr. Setalvad argues that the explanation added
to the Notification cannot control or in any way affect the
plain language used in the Notification. It is his argument
that taxing statutes and rules and notifications issued
thereunder will have to be construed and understood with
reference to the language used therein and there is no scope
for speculation about the true intention or for trying to
gather the true intention otherwise than by interpreting the
language used therein. Mr. Setalvad has further commented
that the Trade Notice issued by the Government in November,
1974, purporting to qualify the Notification by seeking to
lay down that the exemption only applied to physical mixture
of duty paid fertilisers and not to mixed fertiliser
produced as a result of Chemical reaction, is of no material
consequence. It is his comment that the exemption granted
under the Notification cannot in any way be curtailed or
taken away or otherwise affected by the issue of a Trade
Notice purporting to qualify the meaning and scope of the
Notification and the right of any party entitled to the
benefit under the Notification cannot be taken away by any
purported clarification of the Notification without amending
the Notification itself.
It may be noted that before the High Court the very
same contention was raised and the very same arguments were
advanced. The High Court has elaborately and very carefully
considered the case made for exemption under the
Notification and the arguments advanced in support thereof.
On a careful and proper consideration of the contention
raised and the arguments advanced, the High Court, in our
view, rightly disallowed the claim for exemption and
rejected the arguments advanced. While declining to
entertain the claim in this respect the High Court held:
529
"What is exempted is ’Mixed fertilisers’ falling
under item No. 14HH of the First Schedule to the Act.
Item 14HH refers to ’fertilisers, all sorts, but
excluding natural, animal or vegetable fertilisers when
not chemically treated’. It is, therefore, manifest
that the notification is concerned with only
’fertilisers’ and not with any other commodity. This
idea is further demonstrated from the word
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
’manufactured.......from two or more fertilisers’. So,
it follows that a mixed fertiliser, in order to win the
exemption from duty, should be one which has been
manufactured from two or more fertilisers. When the
notification once again used the word ’fertilisers’ its
intention to emphasise that the exemption would be
available only to mixtures of fertilisers becomes
patent. This meaning is further made clearer by the
explanation which gives the meaning of the term ’mixed
fertilisers’ as ’mixtures of fertilisers. Therefore,
there cannot be any hesitation to understand the
meaning of the notification as purporting to grant
exemption only to mixed fertilisers manufactured from
two or more fertilisers. It is not its purpose to grant
exemption to mixtures of fertilisers and other
commodities as well.
Shri Setalvad for the petitioner company strongly
urged that if two or more fertilisers are used in the
manufacture of mixed fertilisers, such fertilisers
would be entitled to exemption dispite the use of other
commodities like Sulphuric Acid and Ammonia. According
to him, what all the notification requires is the use
of two or more fertilisers in the manufacture of mixed
fertilisers and it does not matter if, in addition to
two or more fertilisers, some other commodities are
also used. He also pointed out that had the Government
of India wanted to limit the exemption in the manner in
which the learned Government Pleader construed, then it
would have used the word ’only’ before ’two or more
fertilisers’. Since that word does not occur, the
exemption would be available even if other commodities
are used. If that were the intention of the
notification, then it could have easily said
’manufactured from two or more fertilisers or other
substances’. Not only it omitted to say that, but on
the other hand the notification throughout emphasises
on the use of fertilisers and fertilisers alone. The
absence of the word ’only’ before ’two or more
fertilizers’ does not stand in the way of understanding
the real
530
intention of the Government of India. To our mind,
consequently, the true and natural meaning of the
notification is that the exemption is available to
mixed fertilisers alone. If other commodities are also
used in manufacturing the mixed fertilisers, then the
said mixed fertiliser walks out of the exemption."
The High Court has further observed:-
"We have already noted the averments in paragraph
8 of the writ petition describing the process of
manufacture of NPK 14 : 35 : 14 and the fertilisers and
commodities used therein. The petitioner company itself
stated that NPK 14 : 35 : 14 is manufactured by mixing
with the aid of power from two imported fertilisers
viz. Rock Phosphate and Muriate of Potash. The
Manufacturing process, according to the averments in
the writ petitions consists of treating Rock Phosphate
with Sulphuric Acid, which treatment produces
Phosphoric Acid. The Phosphoric Acid that is thus
produced is further treated with Ammonia as a
consequence of which Mono and Di-Ammonium Phosphate in
slurry form comes into existence. Let us not think at
the present of the Phosphoric Acid and Mono and Di-
Ammonium phosphate which come into existence in the
process of manufacture. Let us concentrate on the basic
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
commodities used in the manufacture of this fertiliser.
From the averments in paragraph 8 of the writ petition
it is obvious that not only the two fertilisers i.e.,
Rock Phosphate and Muriate of Potash are used, but also
Sulphuric Acid and Ammonia are used. The Sulphuric Acid
and Ammonia used in the manufacture of NPK 14 : 35 : 14
are not created in the process of manufacture. They are
brought from outside and utilised in the process of
manufacture just like the two fertilisers Rock
Phosphate and Muriate of Potash. This much is evident
from paragraph 8 of the writ petition.
Undoubtedly Sulphuric Acid is an acid. That can be
seen not only from the very name it has, but also from
the list of acids given in item 14-G of the First
Schedule under the head ’acids’. Ammonia, as can be
seen from item 14HH which is under the heading ’gases’,
is a gas, Sulphuric Acid and Ammonia are independent
commodities which
531
are by themselves eligible to excise duty. In contrast,
when we come to item 14HH in the first schedule, it
deals only with ’fertilisers’. It purports to deal with
fertilisers of all sorts excluding natural, animal or
vegetable fertilisers, when not chemically treated. It
gives a number of commodities which are treated, under
law, as fertilisers. Entry 3 of item 14HH contains the
words which the notification used. It deals with mixed
fertilisers manufactured with the aid of power from two
or more fertilisers. When in the Act itself this
distinction between fertilisers, including mixed
fertilisers, on one hand and acids like Sulphuric Acid
and gases like Ammonia is pointed out and maintained,
it is futile to argue that notification No. 25/70
grants exemption to mixed fertilisers which are
manufactured from two or more fertilisers and acids and
gases. To say that is only to introduce something which
is not in the notification. We are, therefore, of the
view that Gromor NPK 14: 35: 14 is not within the
exemption given under the notification".
We entirely agree with the view expressed by the High
Court. We may also note that the High Court has further
aptly pointed out:
"The process of manufacture of NPK 14: 35: 14,
bringing into existence several other, substances, and
once again utilising them in the process, treating one
substance with the other, cannot be said to be mixture
of fertilisers as postulated by the notification. So,
it will have to be held that NPK 14: 35: 14 is not
entitled to exemption under notification No. 25/70."
It has to be borne in mind that the Explanation added
to the Notification also forms a part of the Notification
itself. The Notification has to be construed as a whole and
in properly interpreting the Notification, the Explanation
which has been added to the Notification cannot be ignored.
The question as to whether the Explanation seeks to control
the operation or the effect of the Notification is indeed
immaterial, as the Explanation purports neither to control
nor to alter but only seeks to explain. What the Explanation
provides is not in any way in conflict with or contrary to
what the Notification provides.
532
Mr. Setalvad made a grievance that the authorities
concerned had allowed the benefit of the Notification under
similar circumstances to a rival company. If the grievance
of the appellant is true, the appellant may no doubt have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
reasons to feel sore about it. We have, however, to point
out that the grievance of the appellant even if it is well
founded, does not entitle the appellant to claim the benefit
of the Notification. A wrong decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to claim
the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision. We are,
therefore, clearly of the opinion that the fertiliser
manufactured by the appellant in respect of which claim for
exemption under the Notification is made is not a mixed
fertiliser within the meaning and scope of the Notification
and we have no hesitation in rejecting the case of the
appellant, expressing our agreement with the reasons stated
in the judgment of the High Court.
The other question raised on behalf of the appellant
relates to the appellant’s claim for deduction of the
commission paid to the selling agents from the assessable
value of the goods manufactured in the matter of computation
of the excise duty. (The agreements which the appellant had
with the selling agents clearly go to indicate that the
selling agents who were being appointed were the agents of
the appellant for sale of fertilisers on behalf of the
appellant. The agreement clearly provides that the selling
agents will secure orders on behalf of the appellant,
execute such orders on behalf of the appellant and will also
remain liable to the appellant for realisation of the price
of goods sold to various parties; and for such services
rendered by the selling agents, the selling agents will be
entitled to the commission stipulated in the agreement
between the parties. The agreement is essentially an agency
agreement and the selling agents were being appointed as
agents for sale and distribution of the product of the
appellant on the basis of the terms and conditions
stipulated in the agreement.) Clause 2 (a) of the agreement
dated April 1, 1971 with M/s. Rallis India Limited which
deals with the question of appointment clearly states:-
"Coromandel hereby appoints the agent as one of
Coromandel Sales Agents for sale and distribution on
behalf of Coromandel of the product in the
territory.........".
The commission which is paid by the appellant to the
selling agents is for services rendered by them as such
agents. Such com-
533
mission paid to agents for services rendered cannot be
considered to be in the nature of any trade discount which
may qualify for deduction in determining the assessable
value of the goods for the purpose of imposition of excise
duty-under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
The decision of this Court in the case of M.C.V.S.
Arunachala Nadar etc. v. The State of Madras and Ors. and
the decision of the Court of Appeal in England In Relicenced
Victuallers’ Mutual Trading Association Exparte Audain
relied on by Mr. Setalvad are not of any assistance in
deciding the question in the present case.
In the case of M.C.V.S. Arunachala Nadar Etc. v. The
State of Madras and Ors.(Supra) this Court was concerned
with the question of constitutional validity of the Madras
Commercial Crops Markets Act (Madras XX of 1933), the rules
framed thereunder and also certain notifications issued in
pursuance thereof. Bye-law 25 dealt with "Trade allowance
applying to the market and notified area". While considering
the nature of trade allowance this Court observed at page
109:
"What is a trade allowance ? Trade involves
exchange of commodities for money, the business of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
buying and selling and the transaction involves the
seller, the buyer, the commodity sold and the price
paid for the sale. Allowance means something given as
compensation, rebate or deduction. Under the section,
the said deduction should be in any transaction in
respect of commercial crops. The deduction may be out
of the commodity or out of the price. The recipient may
be the seller, the buyer or a third party. When A sells
a quantity of cotton to B for a hundred rupees, B, the
purchaser, may deduct one rupee from the sale price and
pay ninety nine rupees to A, he may keep that amount
for himself, or pay the same to C. So too, A, the
seller, may purport to sell one mound of cotton but in
fact deduct a small part of it, retain that part for
himself or give it to C; or both A and B may fix the
price of the commodity purchased at Rs. 102 but the
purchaser pays one rupee to C; or it may be that
payments have nothing to do with the price or the
transaction, but both the parties pay
534
C a specified amount as consideration for the user of
the premises or for the services rendered by him. The
question whether a particular payment is a trade
allowance or not, depends upon the facts of each case.
Firstly, it must be a deduction in any transaction in
respect of commercial crops. If it is deduction out of
the price or commodity agreed to be paid or
transferred, it would be a trade allowance. On the
other hand, if the payment is de hors the terms of the
transaction but made towards consideration for the use
of the premises or services rendered, it would not be a
deduction from the price or in any transaction."
These observations were made in the context of the
provisions of the Act and while construing the same. They
are of no assistance in considering the question raised in
the present case. It may further be noticed that in the
instant case, there is no sale by the appellant to the
agents to whom the commission is paid by way of remuneration
for services rendered as agents of the appellant.
In the case of Relicenced Victuallers’ Mutual Trading
Association Exparte Audain (supra), the Court of Appeal in
England on a construction of the agreement observed that the
word discount in the agreement must be construed as
commission so that the agreement was not one to issue shares
at a discount.
It is possible that in a given case, payment of what is
termed as commission may, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case be in the nature of trade
allowance, But every kind of trade allowance does not
necessarily qualify for deduction in assessment of excise
duty. Commission paid to an agent for services rendered by
him in the matter of sale or the product of the appellant on
behalf of the appellant on the basis of the agreement the
appellant had with its selling agents cannot be considered
to be in the nature of such trade discount as may qualify
for deduction in the computation of the assessable value of
the goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The
commission paid to the selling agents is not a trade
discount given either to the wholesale buyer or to the
retail buyer. It is not given to the consumer or the trader.
The commission paid on the basis of the agreement to the
selling agent by way of remuneration for services rendered
by the agent cannot by any process of reasoning be said to
be trade discount payable or paid at the time of removal of
the goods from the factory or any other
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
535
premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the
place of manufacture or production. The amount of commission
paid to the selling agents, therefore, is not trade discount
within the meaning of the Explanation to section 4 of the
Act and does not qualify for any deduction. In our view the
High Court was clearly justified in rejecting this claim of
the appellant.
Both the claims made by the appellant, therefore, fail
and have been rightly rejected by the High Court. We,
accordingly, dismiss the appeals as also the Special Leave
Petitions. We, however, propose to make no order as to
costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
536