LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus METAL BOX CO. OF INDIA LTD. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A · UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. v. METAL BOX CO. OF INDIA LTD. ETC. OCTOBER 1, 1996 B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] Central Excises and Salt Act 1944-Sections 3 & ~Valuation of Ex- cisable Article-Extruded aluminium tube-Post/extrusion operations-- Whether included in the assessable value of the tube-Held the whole sale C cash p1ice and all expenses incwred upto the date of delive1y of goods are liable to be included for assessment. • • The respondent Company has been manufacturing aluminium tubes by "Extrusion Process". Further several operations like coating, printing, fitting plastic caps etc. are done to the tube which are post extrusion D process. An agreement was reached between the respondent company and Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. to purchase and supply to the respondent, plastic caps to be fitted to the aluminium tubes. Respondent wrote to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise for approval of price list. The excise authority asked the respondent to pay excise duty on the tube including E the value of plastic caps. The respondent approached the High Court holding that the cost of printing, painting or fitting the caps is in/the nature of post manufacture expenses and hence not subject to duty. The writ appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The wholesale cash price at the place of removal is the basis for determination of value of an excisable article and whatever be the whole-sale cash price at which the excisable article is sold in whole sale trade at the place of removal would represent the value of the excisable G ·article on which excise duty is leviable and that no deduction except those provided under Section 4 of the Act is permissible. The theory underlying the judgment of the Single Judge that only the value of the extruded tube shall form the basis of the assessable value and that the cost/charges for coating/printing etc. are not includable in the assessable value is unsus- H tainable in law. [139-D; G-H] 134 • -· U.0.1. v. METAL BOX CO. OFINDIALTD. [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 135 2. Whether the cap forms part of the tube cleared and sold by the A respondent is the question of fact to be decided in a given case. No generalisation is possible. There has been no investigation on this factual aspect in this case because the respondent rushed to the High Court after receiving demand notice. The proper course in the circumstances is to leave the matter to be gone into and determined by the appropriate authority in charge of approving the price list in accordance with law. (140-E; G] B 3. The filing and entertaining the writ petition straightway against the notice of demand issued by Central Excise Officer in the matter involving valuation is inadvisable. [138-B] Union of India v. Bombay Tyre Intemational, [1984] 1 SCC 467; Govt. of India and ors v. Madras Rubber Fact01y Ltd. and Ors., (1995] 4 SCC 349 and Ujagar Prints and others etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 488, relied on. Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, [1996] 1 sec 327, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1981 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.80 of the Bombay High Court in A.No.129/80 in Misc. Petition No. 511 of 1973. Barish N. Salve, A. Subba Rao, V.K. Verma, J.K. Sethi, Rajesh Kumar, Ravinder Narain, Ms. Arnita Mitra, S. Ganesh, P. Venugopal, K.J. John, D.K. Subhedar, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Manik Karanjawala and Ms. Ruby Ahuja for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c D E F B.P. JEEVAN REDDY. J. Leave granted in the Civil Appeal No.12657 G of 1996 [arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No.1836 of 1982.] Common questions of law arise in this batch of appeals. For the sake of convenience, we may deal with the facts in Civil Appeal No.100 of 1981 (Union of India v. Metal Box Company of India Ltd.]. The matter arises under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. H A B 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. The respondent, Metal Box Company of India Limited, were manufacturing tubes, popularly known as "aluminium collapsible and rigid tubes". The collapsible tube is a cylinder of pliable metal. These tubes were originally manufactured from lead but later they were being manufactured predominantly from aluminium. The respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.