Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PUROLATOR INDIA LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1989
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
RANGNATHAN, S.
CITATION:
1990 AIR 202 1989 SCR (2)1023
1989 SCC (3) 181 JT 1989 (3) 11
1989 SCALE (1)1186
ACT:
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Sections 4(1)(a),
4(4)(c) Assessee--Manufacturing and selling filters in the
brand name of customers--Excise duty--Assessment of.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent company, manufacturer of filters, was
selling the goods to its customers under brand names. It
declared its assessable value on the basis of the price at
which it sold the goods. Show Cause Notices, requiring
assessable value to he determined at the price the buyers of
the respondent company sold the goods, issued to the re-
spondent were challenged by it and quashed by the High
Court. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. For the purposes of the excise duty, the market
value of the goods of the respondent company was the price
charged by it, and not the market value at which the buyers
of the respondent company sold the goods. The High Court,
therefore, rightly quashed the Show Cause Notices. [872C]
The Union of India & Ors. v. M/s Playworld Electronics
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 859 of 1988 (S.C.) decid-
ed on 2nd May, 1989, applied.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1491 (NN)
of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5. 1986 of the Delhi
High Court in W. No. 578 of 1981.
A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran and Mrs. Sushma Suri for
the Appellants.
H.N. Salve, P.K. Ram and D.N. Misra for the Respondent.
872
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special
leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No. 859. This is an
appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of
Delhi dated 30th May, 1986.
It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notices were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of
Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are
to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods. In April,
1977, price list submitted by the respondent declaring the
assessable value on the basis of the price at which the
assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16th
April, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving
the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying
the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the
goods. On August 22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to
the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, intera-
lia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were
related persons. A reply was given on 10th September, 1977
by the assessee to the aforesaid letter. First notice was
issued asking the assessee to show cause as to why the
assessable value be not determined at the price the buyers
of the assessee sold the goods (instead of the price at
which the assessee sold the goods to its buyers). There was
a reply and the second show cause notice was issued on 28th
January, 1981. These show cause notices were challenged and
the High Court quashed the said notices. Aggrieved thereby,
this appeal has been filed.
The respondent is a registered company carrying on the
business of manufacturing and selling filters. Some of the
goods are sold by the respondent to its customers under the
respective brand names. The respondent filed a price list at
which price the goods were sold to the customers.
In view of the principles indicated in the judgment in
Civil Appeal No. 859 and the facts adduced before the High
Court, the High Court’s judgment cannot be interfered. The
appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
873