IDL CHEMICALS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22.10.1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta. The Revenue has also filed a cross objection. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial explosives which were assessable under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68. Since a substantial part of their sales were at the factory gate the appellants submitted a price list in Part -I declaring the ex -factory price at Rourkela. The price list was approved by the proper Central Excise officer. Besides selling the goods at the factory gate the appellants were also transferring the goods to their depots at various places throughout the country for sale to various public sector undertakings and other unconnected buyers. In respect of the goods sold from the depots, the post manufacturing expenses such as cost of freight, transportation, insurance etc. were added by the appellants to the ex -factory price to arrive at the selling price. In respect of the sales from upcountry depots during the period July, 1978 to June, 1980 the appellants preferred a claim for refund of the differential duty on the ground that on such sales as well duty was payable on the approved ex -factory price as against the duty actually paid on the basis of the depot sale price. The claim for refund of duty filed by the appellants was, however, rejected by the Assistant Collector by an order dated 23rd April, 1981. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellants the learned advocate Ms. Amrita Mitra appeared before us. She stated that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that even if there was an approved ex -factory price, in respect of goods sold to unconnected buyers from the depots the price realised at the depots would represent the assessable value. She contended that in terms of Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 if the price at which the goods are sold at the factory gate in the course of wholesale trade is determinable such price has to be deemed as the assessable value of the goods even when they are sold from depots. She argued that under these circumstances the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that the expenses after delivery of the goods from the factory by way of transportation, insurance etc. were to be included in the assessable value. She reiterated her stand that even in respect of sales from depots ex -factory price represented the correct assessable value and the differential duty paid by the appellants was refundable. In support of her contention the learned advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE, .

(3.) ON behalf of the Revenue the learned SDR Shri Ram Parkash stated that in respect of sales made from the depots the appellants had failed to identify the post clearance charges on the goods in question during the relevant period. He placed reliance on the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and pleaded for the rejection of the appeal.