COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE versus M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 30-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 204 
A 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 
v. 
I 
MIS. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3159 of 2004) 
B 
JULY 30, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944: 
,. 
c 
s. 4 (as substituted w.e.f. 1. 7.2000) ands. 3- 'Transaction 
value' - Supply of dissolved and compressed industrial gas 
by ,assessee manufacturer to customers -
Charges 
recovered by assessee from buyers for cylinders, tanners, 
canisters etc. - Whether to be taken into consideration for 
D determining value of excisable goods in terms of substituted 
s.4 for purposes of charging of duty of excise on excisable 
goods - Matter referred to larger Bench. 
-l. 
, 
Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. Mis Indian 
Oxygen Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 139; Union of India & Ors. Vs. 
E Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 467; 
Government of India & Ors. Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 
& Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 349 and Commissioner of Central 
Excise Vs. Acer Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 173, referred to. 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
(1988) 4 sec 139 
referred to 
para 1 
(1984) 1 sec 467 
referred to 
para 10 
(1995) 4 sec 349 
referred to 
para 11 
G 
(2004) s sec 113 
referred to 
para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3159 of 2004. 
H 
204 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE v. 205 
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2003 of the 
A 
t 
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 
in Appeal No. E/1370/2003-NB(A). 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 7143, 2986, 2982-2985 of 2005, 2261 of 2006 & 
B 
2246-2247, 3528, 4820, 6695, 2934~2935 of 2008. 
K. Radhakrishnan, S.K. Bagaria, S.W.A. Qadri, Rashmi 
... 
Malhotra, Arijit Prasad, Anil Katiyar, Shreekant N. Terdal, B.V . 
Balaram Das, Madhav Rao, Manish, Rajesh Kumar, S. c 
Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Rajesh Khaware, P.K. 
Mahapatra, Meera Mathur, K. Rajeev, R. Santhanam, Rajendra 
Singhvi, K.K.L. Gautam, Brij Bhushan, Anurag Sharma, Joseph 
Pookkatt, Prashant Kumar, Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, 
Ajay Aggarwal, Kanika Gomber, Rajan Narain, S. Nanda 
D 
_,_ 
Kumar, G. Ananda Selvam, V.N. Raghupathy, Jai Kumar, Nikhil 
.... 
Nayyar, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ambuj Agrawal for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
E 
ORDER 
1. This batch of appeals, by the Revenue, under Section 
)( 
35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") is 
directed against the orders. passed by the Customs, Excise & 
F 
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). By the 
impugned orders, the Tribunal has held that despite insertion 
of amended Section 4 of the Act w.e.f. 1st July, 2000 introducing 
the concept of "transaction value" in Section 4 (1 )(a) of the Act, 
the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Collector G 
of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Mis Indian Oxygen Ltd., (1988) 
-\ 
4 SCC 139, still holds the field. Therefore, the charges 
recovered by the assessees from their customers for providing 
them the containers and/or canisters etc. for supply of gases 
or other items etc., manufactured by them are not to be added 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 12 S.C.R. 
A to the price of the goods etc., for the purpose of determination 
of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act, as 
substituted by Section 94 of Finance Act of 2000. 
2. The factual position in regard to the nature and design 
8 of the containers, canisters etc., in each of the appeals being 
different, for the purpose of this order, we refrain from narrating 
the facts obtaining in each of the cases. However, in order to 
appreciate the controversy involved, a brief reference to the 
common and admitted factual background may be necessary. 
C 
3. The period of assessment involved in all the appeals is 
post 1st July, 2000. 
4. The respondents-assessees in these appeals are 
manufacturers of dissolved and compressed industrial gases 
D etc. post mix concentrates (POM) and some other products. 
These gases are transported and supplied to the customers 
in tanners, cylinders, carboys, paper cones and HOPE bags, 
"' 
BIBs, pipeline and canisters. Tanners, cylinders and pipelines 
"' 
etc., are specially designed as per the given specifications. 
E Canisters are specially designed containers to be used in the 
vending machines. The cylinders etc., are either provided by 
the assessees or the customers bring their own cylinders etc., 
at the factory gates of the assessees. For providing cylin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.