1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 29th December, 1978. It was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, but on transfer it has been registered as an appeal.
2. The Appellants manufacture tooth paste (dental cream) for sale in the market. It is alleged that this product is also being distributed in the form of gifts to the school children and dentists. While assessing the value for the purposes of excise duty, the Assistant Collector held that even the goods meant for gifts were assessable at the same rate as are the goods ordinarily sold in the market. So the same rate of excise duty as was payable on the goods meant for sale was charged even on those which were meant for distribution as gifts to the institutions or the dentists. Aggrieved from this order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. Against the said order of the Collector, the present appeal is before us for decision.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the expression 'such goods' occurring in section 4 of the Act had not been correctly interpreted by the Collector. It is argued that the goods meant for gifts constitute a different class and cannot be equated with the goods which are meant for sale and, therefore, such goods be treated differently and not at par with the goods manufactured for the purposes of sale. We find no substance in this contention. Both type of goods are identical. Only user is by different persons. The other distinction between the two is that on the carton of the goods meant for gifts there are additional printings "Young India" and "Not for sale...distributed free of cost under the "Colgate Palmolive Young India Dental Health Programme". Thus the only distinguishing feature is the additional printing on the cartons. So far as the quality and other contents of the dental cream are concerned, they are the same. The mere fact that some are for free distribution for the purposes of advertisement does not change the nature so as to take them out of the ambit of section 4 under which assessment is made according to the value payable for the goods ordinarily sold by the assessee. We cannot enlarge the scope and meaning of "such goods" as is intended to be done. The expression "such goods" would cover all types of dental cream under the trade mark "Colgate" which are manufactured and sold by the factory, whether for sale or for free distribution. The Central Excise Officer is simply to consider the assessable value of the article when the same is taken out of the factory premises and whether it is distributed as a free gift or sold is not relevant for the purpose of assessment. It is not the function of the Excise officer to keep a track of the manner of the disposel of the, goods released by him. His function ends after he has made the assessment and has cleared the goods after charging the duty.
For the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.