Skip to content


Purolator India Limited Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.W.P. No. 3789 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1986(24)ELT18(Del)
ActsCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4(1) and 4(4)
AppellantPurolator India Limited
RespondentUnion of India and Others
Excerpt:
- .....of the customers of the petitioner for whom goods are not manufactured by the petitioner with brand name imprinted thereon of the respective customers. it is not necessary to deal with the virus of the provision in the view that we are going to take in the matter. 2. the impugned show cause notice dated october 19, 1982 is on the basis that prima facie the superintendent of central excise feels that the price list submitted by the petitioner was not correct inasmuch as the brand name owner would appear to be the manufacturer and not the petitioner. in consequence the price at which the brand name owner sells the goods would be the relevant price on which petitioner would be required to pay excise duty. in our view the stand taken by the superintendent of central excise is wholly.....
Judgment:

1. By this petition challenge has been made to the virus of Section 4(4)(c) proviso III to Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excises and Salt Act. The question raised as to virus is in the context of the customers of the petitioner for whom goods are not manufactured by the petitioner with brand name imprinted thereon of the respective customers. It is not necessary to deal with the virus of the provision in the view that we are going to take in the matter.

2. The impugned show cause notice dated October 19, 1982 is on the basis that prima facie the Superintendent of Central Excise feels that the price list submitted by the petitioner was not correct inasmuch as the brand name owner would appear to be the manufacturer and not the petitioner. In consequence the price at which the brand name owner sells the goods would be the relevant price on which petitioner would be required to pay excise duty. In our view the stand taken by the Superintendent of Central Excise is wholly untenable. We have already held in the case reported as 1982 Excise Law Times 463 that such a stand of the Excise Authorities would not be valid in law. Accordingly, we quash the impugned show cause notice dated 19th October, 1982 and direct that price list of the petitioner be cleared without this objection being raised. It will not be open to the respondent Authorities to take up the objection vis-a-vis brand name in giving approval to the price list submitted by the petitioner. No other relief is necessary at this stage nor it is pressed.

3. This price list should be approval within two months from today.

4. The petition is allowed in terms of our above order and rule is made absolute in terms thereof.

5. There will be no order as to costs.

6. Till the price list is approved, clearance will be allowed to be made by the petitioner as heretofore.


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