CCE, CHANDIGARH Vs. HANSA METALLIC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue is whether the price of the excisable goods, which were treated by the Respondents as not chargeable to duty and subsequently held to be chargeable to duty, should be treated as cum -duty price. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Hansa Metallic Limited manufacture Galvanised Corrugated Sheets which were cleared by them without payment of duty; that the Commissioner has held that the process undertaken by the Respondents amounts to manufacture and has demanded the duty; that however, while confirming the demand, the Commissioner has re -quantified the amount of duty by taking the selling price as cum -duty price; that the assessable value has been worked out by deducting the amount of duty from the wholesale price; that as the Respondents had not paid any duty at the time of clearance of goods, the element of excise duty was not included in the wholesale price at the first instance; that accordingly the deduction of duty is not warranted to arrive at the assessable value. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner v. Bata India Ltd. : 1996 (84) ELT 164 (SC) : 1996 (64) ECR 678 (SC).