UNION OF INDIA Vs. HIND LAMP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 16th December, 1976.

(2.) The question in this case was the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent company had submitted its price list in Form IV to the Superintendent, Central Excise containing the price at which five companies to which it sold its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sold those products. The customer companies thereafter sold their products. The respondent challenged the direction of the Superintendent and had contended that for the purpose of levy of excise duty the value of its products should be the prices at which it sold those products to the customer companies and not the prices at which these in turn sold those products to wholesale dealers or others. The respondent company was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. At the relevant time, there were five shareholders of the company, namely, Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Bombay, Crompton Parkinson Ltd., London, N. V. Philips, Eindhoven (Holland), General Electricals Co. Ltd., London and Mazda Lamp Co. Ltd., Leicester, England, Except M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., the aforesaid four companies are referred to as the foreign companies. The said Bajaj Electricals held 1,80,000 shares in the respondent company. It is called 'A' shareholder The four foreign companies together held 1,80,000 shares. These are called 'B' shareholders. The respondent company was engaged in manufacture of electric lamps, fluorescent lamps and miniature lamps. It sold its entire output of the products exclusively to the following customer companies:

(3.) On the lamps manufactured by the respondent company it put the brand names or trade marks like Philips, Osram, Mazda, Crompton and Bajaj of the respective Customer Companies according to their directions. The customer companies in turn sold these lamps under their names at prices higher than the prices charged by the respondent company. Excise duty on electric lamps and fluorescent lamps was levied for the first time in the year 1965. At first excise duty on lamps was a specific duty. Later, excise duty on them was changed from specific to ad valorem duty. After such change, there was a controversy between the respondent company and the Central Excise authorities as to whether the prices charged by the respondent company to its customer companies for its products or the prices charged by the customer companies when they sold them to wholesale dealers and others, should be the basis for determination of the value for levy of excise duty. Being aggrieved by the insistence of the Central. Excise authorities that the latter prices should be the value for levy of excise duty, the respondent company approached the High Court of Allahabad by Civil Misc. Writ No. 2189 of 1973. The High Court by its order dated 14th May, 1974, allowed the writ petition and held that the prices at which the respondent company sold its products to the customer companies, should be the value for levy of excise duty and not the price at which the customer companies sold these to wholesale dealers and others. The Central Excise authorities, however, had taken the view that the aforesaid decision of the High Court which was rendered on the basis of the old section 4 as it stood before it was amended by the Amendment Act of 1973 did not apply to the levy of excise duty subsequent to the Amendment Act coming into force on lst October, 1973 . On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the respondent company was that the aforesaid amendment of the Act had not altered the legal position so far as the respondent company was concerned and that the decision of the High Court would be binding. It appears that the Central Excise authorities were wrong in view of the observations of this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1984) 1 SCR,347, where this Court observed that it was not the intention of the Parliament while enacting the new section to create a scheme materially different from that embodied in the superseded S. 4. The object and purpose remained the same,. and so did the central principle of the scheme. The new scheme was merely more comprehensive and the language employed more precise and definite. As in the old S. 4, the terms in which the value was defined remained the price charged by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal. See the observations at pages 377 and 378 of the said report. The High Court referred to the decision of this Court in A. K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., (1973) 2 SCR 1089 and also in Union of India v. Atic Industries Ltd., (1984)3 SCR930.