of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. M/S Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills
Ltd.  Insc 407 (21
Babu & Syed Shah Mohhamed Quadri Rajendra Babu, J. :
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4900-4902/99, 5639/99, 5149/99, 5642/99, 5071/99, 5398-5402/99,
5422/99,5949/99, 5943-5945/99, 6304-6308/99, 6309-6316/99, 5857/99,
6297-6303/99, 6486-6491/99, 6438-6455/99, 6808-6819/99, 160-161/2000]
J U D
G M E N T
these appeals the Revenue is the appellant. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the
Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short the Act) (U.P. Act
No. XXIV of 1964),as amended by U.P. Act No.15 of 1974 and No. 5 of 1986, is in
force. The Act provides for the control of storage, gradation and price of
molasses produced by sugar factories and the regulation of supply and
distribution thereof in Uttar Pradesh. Section 8(4) of the Act provides that
the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay to the State Government
administrative charges at such rate, not exceeding five rupees per quintal as
the State may from time to time notify, on the molasses sold or supplied by
him. Section 5 of the Act enables the occupier to recover from the person to
whom the molasses is sold or supplied an amount equivalent to the amount of
administrative charges in addition to the price of molasses.
Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order held that the
administrative charges collected by the State Government under Section 8(4) of
the Act is to be included in the assessable value of molasses cleared by the
respondents. An appeal was carried against that order. The Commissioner
(Appeals) held that the administrative charges collected by the State
Government under the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act is a type of impost
and such impost is in the nature of a tax as defined under Article 366 of the
Constitution and, on that basis, he held that the administrative charges paid
by the respondents is not liable to be included in the assessable value as
defined under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue
filed an appeal before the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) wherein it is contended, as has been done
before us now, that under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act only
duties on excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any payable, are to be excluded
from the assessable value and administrative charges levied under the Act
cannot be equated with other taxes. The Tribunal held that in terms of Section
4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act assessable value in relation to excisable
goods will not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes
payable on such goods. If the expression tax is understood in the widest sense
it would include all money raised by taxation including taxes levied by the Union and State Legislatures and rates and other charged
levied by local authorities under statutory powers. It is not disputed before
the Tribunal that the administrative charges at the rate of Rupees 5 per
quintal on molasses sold or supplied by the respondents to the State Government
is a levy made under the statute passed by the State Legislature. In view of
the wide interpretation to be given to the expression tax, the Tribunal found
no reason to interfere with the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and
dismissed the appeal.
this decision several cases have been disposed of and they are all in appeal
Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64, it is observed :
taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said.
is no room for any intendment. There is no equality about a tax. There is no
presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One
can only look fairly at the language used.
learned Attorney General projecting the aforesaid view submitted that fiscal
measures are built upon theory of taxation; that the clear effect of the
expression in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) is to exclude only taxes and no other
matters; that what is enumerated in the said provisions are only taxes"
and no other charges which are not taxes; that the administrative charges are
not taxes and are not payable on goods but recovered from the occupier and this
position becomes clear if we look at provisions of Section 8(5) of the Act
which makes it clear that the occupier will recover from the person to whom the
molasses is sold or supplied in addition to the price of molasses, that is, by
way of additional price and not by way of taxes; that the administrative
charges is not a sales tax levied on the molasses sold or supplied.
learned Attorney General, while elaborating his arguments, further drew our
attention to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and submitted that the duty of
excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to the value, that
such value is subject to other provisions of this Section should be deemed to
be the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which the goods are
ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for
delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related
person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. He submitted that
the normal price will include the administrative charges and, therefore, will
have to be included for the purpose of ascertaining the assessable value and
Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act is not attracted at all.
Bhushan and Shri D.A. Dave, the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the
respondents, supported the view taken by the Tribunal and contended that the
administrative charge is in the nature of a tax and, therefore, stands excluded
from the definition of assessable value as provided under Section 4(4)(d)(ii)
and commended to us that we should affirm the order made by the Tribunal.
Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act what is to be excluded from the
assessable value is the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes.
Taxes, as such, are not defined in the Central Excise Act. If the expression
tax is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it would certainly
cover any levy.
D.G. Ghose & Co.(Agents) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 1980 (2)
SCC 410, broad meaning had been given to the expression tax. In such an event,
administrative charges would be covered under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) as other
taxes because it is a compulsory exaction made under an enactment and,
therefore, a duty or impost and such impost must be held to be in the nature of
a tax covered by the aforesaid provisions.
that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order made by the Tribunal
and, therefore, we affirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals
with costs to the respondents a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each.
RAJENDRA BABU ] ....J.
SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ] August