Skip to content


Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(2002)(140)ELT121TriDel
AppellantTata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of C. Ex.
Excerpt:
.....as also expenses incurred with regard to packing, selling expenses, publicity charges and interest.shri mehta submitted that he would confine the appellants' claim only to such expenses which have been held admissible for deduction by the supreme court vide their judgment in [1983 (14) e.l.t. 1896 (s.c.)] (union of india and ors. v. bombay tyres international, etc.). shri mehta submitted a certificate dated 9-6-84 prepared by the cost accountant of the appellant company. the certificate is a short one and is extracted below : "this is to certify that the average element of cost in respect of sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge on sales tax, turnover tax and octroi/entry tax incurred by the tata oil mills company limited relating to and forming part of the ex-factory wholesale.....
Judgment:
1. At the outset Shri Mehta submitted that besides the three appeals listed for hearing today there is one more appeal bearing No. 262/77-A which also involves the same legal issue. He requested that this appeal could also be taken up for consideration along with other appeals. The request being reasonable, we have acceded to it.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the appellants had filed a price-list for glycerine in different packs. In the price-list proper, the only deduction sought was with regard to excise duty. However, under columns 6 and 7 of the price-list, a mention was made of an annexure to the price-list. From the records it would appear that the annexure to the price-list is the document captioned 'post manufacturing charges' per unit for the year 1975-76.

In the said statement, the appellants have set out the various packs in which the glycerine was to be marketed as also expenses incurred with regard to packing, selling expenses, publicity charges and interest.

Shri Mehta submitted that he would confine the appellants' claim only to such expenses which have been held admissible for deduction by the Supreme Court vide their judgment in [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)] (Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International, etc.). Shri Mehta submitted a certificate dated 9-6-84 prepared by the Cost Accountant of the appellant Company. The certificate is a short one and is extracted below : "This is to certify that the average element of cost in respect of sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge on sales tax, turnover tax and octroi/entry tax incurred by the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited relating to and forming part of the ex-factory wholesale price of the finished products listed in the annexure is Rs. 0.30 per package for the year 1975-76.

The above unit cost is averaged out on the basis of the total expenditure incurred by the Company throughout India." We put it to Shri Mehta that the Certificate refers to elements such as sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge on sales tax, turnover tax, octroi/entry tax etc. No reference of these elements had been made either in the price-list or in the annexure to the said list. Shri Mehta submitted that the above-mentioned charges would fall under the general heading 'Selling expenses' as given in the price-list. We observe that the Supreme Court in their judgment supra have given a clear ruling that selling expenses are not deductible from the price for arriving at the assessable value. The submission made by Shri Mehta, therefore, cannot be accepted. The expression 'selling expenses' stands out distinctly vis-a-vis tax elements like the sales tax, octroi, etc. In any event, we observe from the record that this point was never agitated before the lower authorities nor set out in the grounds of the appeal.

3. We would like to set out here that we have scrutinised the record pertaining to Appeal No. 262/'77'-A which relates to glycerine. The record pertaining to Appeal No. 263/77-A relating to cosmetics and toilet preparations has also been shown to us. Shri Mehta submits that the format and general contents with regard to the remaining two appeals were identical; Appeal No. 242/77-A covered 'Organic Surface Active Agents' and Appeal No. 287/77-A pertains to 'Soaps'.

4. For the reasons discussed above, we see no merit in all the four appeals and dismiss the same.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //