PRADIP LAMP WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of annexures 8, 11 and 13. By Annexure 8 the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,863.55 paise being the amount of short assessment from March, 1969 to November, 1969 in respect of Excise duty payable by the petitioner. Annexure 11 is the order passed by the Deupty Controller of Central Excise disposing of the appeal of the petitioner objecting to the aforesaid demand. Annexure 13 is the order passed by the Government of India on the revision application which was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts leading to the filing, of this application may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a firm of partnership and manufactures and sells electric lamps, fluorescent tubes etc. of various specifications. Wholesale sales are affected by the petitioner to general trade as also to some parties, who make bulk purchases. The parties who make bulk purchases get the goods embossed on the cap or etched on the glass shells from inside with certain letters. The rate at which the goods are sold wholesale to the general trade in higher than the rate at which it is supplied to the bulk purchasers. During the period March, 1969 to November, 1969 the Excise authorities assessed the duties according to the contract rate and payments were accordingly made. Thus for the assessment of the Excise duty the contract price between the petitioner and those bulk purchasers was taken to be the criterion for the purpose of determining the Excise duty.

(3.) Under a notice issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the petitioner was required to make goods the short assessment the aforesaid period. It appears that the demand was made on the basis that the determination of value for the purpose of duty was to be made under Section 4(a) of the Act. The wholesale cash price for the goods sold by the petitioner must be reckoned to be the same both for the general trade as also for the bulk purchasers. Since the value was taken to be lower for the bulk purchasers, it became necessary to issue fresh notice. As already stated the demand was resisted both in appeal and revision, but the petitioner was unsuccessful at both the stages.