Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Regarding Excise Duty on Manufactured Goods. The court affirmed that the seller was the manufacturer, and the wholesale price charged by the seller was the correct basis for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved the determination of the manufacturer for excise duty purposes under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent, Cibatul Ltd., entered into agreements with Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. for manufacturing resins. The agreements stipulated that the resins were to be manufactured according to the buyer's specifications, with the buyer having the right to test and approve the goods before sale. The seller filed a declaration for excise duty based on its wholesale prices, but the Assistant Collector revised these prices, asserting that the buyer was the manufacturer. The Central Government upheld this view, leading to a challenge in the Gujarat High Court, which ruled in favor of the seller. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the seller was the manufacturer as it owned the production resources and sold the goods to the buyer. The court clarified that the wholesale price for excise duty should be based on the seller's prices, not the buyer's resale prices. The appeals by the Union of India were dismissed with costs.

Headnote

A) Excise Duty - Manufacturer Definition - Determination of Manufacturer - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Section 36(2) - The court held that the seller was the manufacturer of the goods as it owned the plant, machinery, and raw materials, and the goods were manufactured on its own account, not on behalf of the buyer. The wholesale price charged by the seller was the correct basis for excise duty, not the price at which the buyer sold the goods to others. (Paras 100-101).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the seller or the buyer is considered the manufacturer for the purpose of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Union of India, affirming the High Court's ruling that the seller was the manufacturer and the wholesale price charged by the seller was the correct basis for excise duty.

Law Points

  • Excise Duty
  • Manufacturer Definition
  • Wholesale Price Determination
  • Joint Manufacturing Agreements
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1985 LawText (SC) (09) 3

Civil Appeal No. 2619 of 1977 and Civil Appeal No. 4399 of 1985

1985-09-27

R.S. Pathak, P.N. Bhagwati, Amareindra Nath Sen

1986 AIR 281, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 95, 1985 SCC (4) 535, 1985 SCALE (2) 770

K. Parasaran, N.C. Talukdar, Suraj Udai Singh, Dalveer Bhandari, C.V. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar, N.A. Palkhiwala, J.C. Bhatt, D.B. Engineer, B.H. Antia, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, Kamal Mehta, Talat Ansari, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Ashok Sagar, Rainu Walia, Sukumaran, D.N. Misra

Union of India & Ors.

Cibatul Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the levy of excise duty based on the determination of the manufacturer.

Remedy Sought

Cibatul Ltd. sought to establish that it was the manufacturer for excise duty purposes.

Filing Reason

The Central Government revised the wholesale prices for excise duty, asserting the buyer was the manufacturer.

Previous Decisions

The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the seller, stating the seller was the manufacturer.

Issues

Whether the seller or the buyer is the manufacturer for excise duty purposes. What constitutes the correct basis for determining the wholesale price for excise duty.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the buyer was the manufacturer as per the agreements. The respondent contended that it was the manufacturer as it owned the production resources.

Ratio Decidendi

The seller was deemed the manufacturer as it owned the production resources and sold the goods to the buyer, thus the wholesale price charged by the seller was the basis for excise duty.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court was right in concluding that the wholesale price of the goods manufactured by the seller is the wholesale price at which it sells those goods to the buyer. The relevant provisions of the agreements and the other material on the record show that the manufacturing programme is drawn up jointly by the buyer and the seller.

Procedural History

The appeals were directed against the judgments and orders of the Gujarat High Court allowing two writ petitions challenging the levy of excise duty.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Section 36(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Petitioners in Employment Fitment Dispute — Directs Reassessment of Post Equivalence. The court found that the rationalisation scheme lacked proper post equivalence, necessitating a new committee to reassess fitment based on fu...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Charitable Trust's Tax Exemption Claim — Clarifies Conditions for Exemption Under Income Tax Act.