Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur  Insc 442 (24 October 2002)
N. Variava & Brijesh Kumar. S. N. Variava, J.
C. A. No.3530/1997, C. A. Nos.987-996/1998, C. A. Nos. 2785-2790/2001, C. A.Nos.
3002-3003/2001, C. A. Nos. 3857- 3859/2001, C. A. No. 4226/2001, C. A.
No.4227/2001, C. A. 4760/2001, C. A. Nos. 4541- 4558/2001, C. A. Nos.
4559-4630/2001, C. A.Nos. 4631-4657/2001 and C. A. Nos. 749- 751/2002)
of these Appeals are filed by the Collector of Central Excise. Other Appeals
are filed by Iron or Steel Manufacturing Companies. In all these Appeals common
questions of law arise.
all these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
stated the facts are as follows:
Section 2(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 "iron and steel
including manufacture of products of iron and steel" are essential
commodities. Section 3 of this Act enables the Central Government to control
production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. One of the
manners of control could be by regulating price at which the essential
commodities are to be bought or sold.
to the powers given under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the
Government of India issued the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. Clauses 15
and 17 (b) of the said Order read as follows:
Power to fix price. –
The Controller may from time to time by notification in the Gazette of India,
fix the maximum prices at which any iron or steel may be sold
a stockholder including a controlled stockholder and
any other person or class of persons.
price or prices may differ for iron and steel obtaining from different sources
and may include allowances for contribution to and payment from any Equalisation
Fund established by the Controller for equalising freight, the concession rates
payable to each producer or class of producers under agreements entered into by
the Controller with the producers from time to time and any other
disadvantages. The Controller may also, by a general or special order in
writing, require any person or class of person enumerated above to pay such
amount on account of allowances for contribution to any Equalisation Fund,
within such period and in such manner as the Controller may direct in this
that the Controller may, with the approval of the Central Government, fix
maximum prices for sale of iron or steel
a stockholder including a Controller Stockholder and
any other person or class of persons for export outside India and such prices may be different
from the maximum selling prices fixed for sale for other purposes.
further that the Controller may, with the approval of the Central Government,
fix maximum controller prices for sale of iron or steel by the Registered
Producers and Controlled Stockholders to the manufacturers of engineering goods
for fabricating products for export, at prices lower than the maximum selling prices
fixed for sale for other purposes.
For the purpose of applying the prices notified under sub-clause (1) the
Controller may himself classify any iron and steel and may, if no appropriate
price has been so notified, fix such price as he considers appropriate:
that where any stocks are required by a special order of the Controller to be
moved from one place to another or are to be sold at a place which is not
connected with any railhead, the Controller may direct that the maximum prices
fixed under sub-clause (1) or (2), shall not apply to such stocks and may, in
respect of such stocks, specify the maximum prices at which the iron or steel
may be sold.
producer or stockholder or other person shall sell or offer to sell, and no
person shall acquire, any iron or steel at a price exceeding the maximum prices
fixed under sub-clause (1) or (2).
Power of Central Government to set up committees, etc. –
For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this order, with respect
to any category of iron or steel, whether such category is subject to or exempt
from the operation of all or any such provisions, the Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette, set up, from time to time, such
committees, bodies or authorities as it may consider necessary.
committee, body or authority set up under sub-clause (1) shall carry out such
functions as may be specified in the notification under which such committee,
body or authority is set up." Thus it is to be seen that what could be
fixed is the price. The Committees which were to be set up were only to carry
out such functions as would be specified in the Notification under which they
are set up.
Notification bearing no. SC(1)-1(5)/71-B dated 7th April, 1971, a Joint Plant Committee (JPA) and a Steel Priority
Committee (SPC) were set up. Clause 8 of this Notification reads as follows:
The Committee may determine, announce and list prices (base prices as well as
extras) from time to time of all categories of iron or steel not subject to
price control under clause 15 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. The
prices so determined will be ex-works prices.
Controller shall add a fixed element of equalised freight to the ex-works
prices announced from time to time in order to ensure that buyers of steel all
over the country pay the same railway freight irrespective of the distance from
the source of supply. The Committee may take such measures as it considers
necessary or desirable to ensure that buyers of iron or steel al over the
country pay the same price." It must be mentioned that the Committees
constituted under the Notification consisted of a Chairman, i.e. the Iron and
Steel Controller, one representative of each of the main Steel Plants i.e. one
from TISCO, one from the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, one from the
Hindustan Steel Limited, Raurkela, one from the Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilai,
one from the Hindustan Steel Limited, Durgapur and a representative of the
Railways. Thus the majority of members in these Committees were from the Iron
and Steel Companies who are before this Court.
another Notification dated 27th December, 1998 the earlier Notification was amended. Sub-clauses (9A) and (9B) were
read as follows:
The Committee may add an element to the ex- works prices determined under
sub-clause (8) for constituting a fund for modernisation, research and
development with the object of ensuring the production of iron and steel in the
desired categories and grades by the main steel plants. In the matter of
operation of this fund, the Committee shall perform its functions in accordance
with and subject to, such regulations or directions as may be issued by the
Central Government, from time to time.
The Committee may also add any other element to the ex-works prices determined
under sub-clause (8) to enable it to discharge its functions and to implement
specific scheme entrusted to it by the Central Government." At a meeting
held by JPC on 16th January, 1992 note was taken of a Notification No. SC/16(6)/91.
It was resolved that the members steel plants would add to their ex-works
prices certain elements. The relevant Clause of the Notification reads as
The Committee may from time to time require the member steel plants to add the
elements listed below to their ex-works prices of all or any of the categories
of iron and steel and to remit the same to the Committee within such periods as
may be specified:
element of price towards the Steel Development Fund for financing schemes,
projects and other capital expenditures for modernisation, research and
development, rehabilitation, diversification, renewals and replacement,
balancing, additions to capacity, major new investments or any other programme for
improving the quantum of technology or efficiency of production of Iron and
Steel or their quality.
Explanation: The Committee shall perform its
functions relating to the Steel Development Fund in accordance with and subject
to such orders as directions or may be issued by the Central Government in this
behalf from time to time.
element of price for enabling the Committee to discharge its functions and to
implement specific schemes entrusted to it by the Central Government ;
An element of price towards the Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund."
(emphasis supplied) Pursuant to this Notification these Companies started
adding that element to their ex-works price. The Excise Department claims that
excise is payable even on this component.
questions which therefore arise are (i) whether the elements required to be
added by the members steel plants, as per the decision of the JPC, are
admissible deductions under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the said Act) i.e. whether they fall within the
definition of the term "other taxes" and (ii) whether such addition,
which is a compulsory impost, can be considered and be price on which excise
duty is payable by the parties.
Desai has submitted that the Iron or Steel Companies have to compulsory add
this element to the ex-works price. He submitted that this therefore is a
compulsory exaction. He relied upon the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd.
in 2001 (132) ELT 523 (S.C.). In this case, in the State of Uttar Pradesh there was an Act called the Uttar
Pradesh Shera Niyantaran Adhiniyam, 1964. This Act regulated storage,
gradation, price, supply and distribution, in Uttar Pradesh, of molasses
produced by the sugar factories. Section 8(4) of the Act provided that sugar
factories would be liable to pay to the State Government administrative charges
as may from time to time be notified. These administrative charges were based
on the quantity of molasses sold and supplied by the sugar factories. Section 5
of the Act enabled the factories to recover these charges from the person to
whom the molasses were sold. The question before the Court was whether this
compulsory exaction fell within the term "other taxes" in Section 4(4)(d)(ii)
of the Central Excise Act. This Court held as follows:
Under 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.
G. Ghose & Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. 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."
Strongly relying on these observations, Mr. Desai submitted that in this case
also there is a compulsory exaction and therefore such compulsory exaction is
in the nature of "tax" and is covered by the words "other
taxes" in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act Mr. Desai also
drew the attention of this Court to the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Union
of India reported in (2000) 4 SCC 137. In this case the Petitioner who was also
a manufacturer of iron and steel claimed that they were entitled to financial
assistance from the Steel Development Fund. This Court set out all the relevant
provisions and then held as follows:
As seen above, SDF was created by notification issued under clause 17-B of the
Control Order. Main steel plants form the primary units of the Joint Plant
Committee. It wee only the members steel plants or the main steel plants who
were subjected to add an element of their ex-works price and remit the same
and TISCO were the member steel plants. SAIL was having four plants at Bhilai, Bokaro,
Durgapur and Rourkela. Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. subsequently got merged
with SAIL. By notification dated 16-1-1992 the Central Government withdrew the price restrictions under the
Control Order and thereafter by notification dated 21-4-1994 contributions by the member steel producers towards SDF was
also discontinued. It is the Central Government, which exercises control over
SDF though there is no backing of any statutory provision for creation of SDF.
The primary object of SDF was to enable the main steel producers for
modernization, research and development with the object of ensuring the
production of iron and steel in the desired categories and grades by the main
steel producers who were known as secondary producers were not members of the
Joint Plant Committee. They were not subjected to add an element of ex-works
price of steel but could add any element of their choice and not to make
remittance of the same to SDF. It does not stand to reason as to how these
secondary producers are entitled to claim any amount from the corpus of SDF or
to get some directions issued respecting the use of SDF. The petitioner started
production only in April 1998 when four years prior to that remittance to SDF
had been discontinued. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not a member
of the Joint Plant Committee and did not remit any amount towards the corpus of
SDF. The question is if in these circumstances the petitioner could advance a
claim or exercise a right on SDF in any manner.
were the members of the Joint Plant Committee who were made bound to add an
element of ex-works price and to remit that amount for the constitution of SDF.
It has been stated by the first respondent, Union of India, through the
affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, Joint Plant Committee, that funds out
of SDF were disbursed to the member steel plants by the SDF Managing Committee
as per directions issued by the Central Government from time to time.
then submitted that since early 1990s there has been a general recession in the
steel industry. SAIL had approached the Central Government for its financial
and business restructuring. SAIL had taken over Indian Iron and Steel Company
Ltd., a sick company in the year 1978. Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of SAIL. The proposal given by SAIL to the Central
Government contained various components and measures including waiver of loans
from SDF made over to member steel plants which were under SAIL. It will be
noticed that the amount of SDF was not in fact remitted to the Central
Government but was shown as credit to the Central Government in the books of
SAIL and its member steel plants. This proposal of SAIL, it would appear, has
since been accepted by the Central Government by its letter dated 18-2-2000 which we have reproduced above.
While there was price control under the Control Order during the period 1978-94
when the remittance to SDF was made by the main steel producers, the petitioner
was nowhere in the picture and was not subjected to any price control like the
main steel producers. The petitioner and other steel producers were free to
produce and sell the iron and steel products in the market on the prevailing
prices. It has been pointed that the price fixed by the petitioner of its
products was much higher than the control price which included elements of SDF.
While the collection and remittance to SDF has been discontinued w.e.f. April
1994, the petitioner made its claim for the first time in 1999 which would
appear to be rather incongruous.
submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is not bona fide and the writ
petition has been filed with ulterior motives, which are not difficult to
fathom. SAIL had stressed immediate need for restructuring and modernizing all
the main steel plants. Due to recession, SAIL has been passing through a severe
financial position and has to suffer a loss of Rs. 1574 crores in 1998-99. It
has further to suffer the burden of interest to the tune of Rs. 2017 crores per
annum for modernization. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does
not have any right to claim any relief in the writ petition pertaining to
utilization of SDF. It is quite apparent that from the very nature of the
creation of SDF, the manner of remittance to SDF and purpose of its
utilization, it is a fund created ultimately for the utilization by the member
steel producers only." Mr Desai submitted that this case shows that what
was being added was an element to the ex-works price and that the exaction was
a compulsory exaction. He submitted that the manufacturers had no option but to
add this element to the ex- works price and to then remit that amount to JPC
and the SPC. He submitted that these compulsory exactions were clearly having
the nature of a tax.
order to understand the submission, the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act
need to be look at. The relevant provisions of Section 4 read as follows:
Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.
Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods
with reference to value, such value shall, subject to the other provisions of
this section, be deemed to be (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the
price at which such 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
xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "assessee"
means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and
includes his agent;
xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) "value" in relation to any excisable goods,- xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales
tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject to such rules
as may be made, the trade discount (such discount not being refundable on any
account whatsoever) allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the
wholesale trade at the time of removal in respect of such goods sold or
contracted for sale;" It is thus to be seen that under the said Act excise
duty is chargeable on the value of the goods. The value is the normal price
i.e. the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a
buyer, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole
consideration for sale. From the price at which the assessee sells to the buyer
the only deductions permissible are those under sub-clause 4(d)(ii) i.e.
excise, sales tax and other taxes and in certain cases trade discounts. It is
nobody's case that the extra element is an excise or a sales tax or a trade
only question is whether it would fall within the meaning of the term
Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd.'s case, to give a broad meaning to the term
"tax", reliance was placed upon the case in D. G. Gose and Co. v.
State of Kerala which is reported in (1980) 2 SCC 410. In D. G. Gose's case the
question was regarding the validity of tax imposed by the Kerala State on
buildings by virtue of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The validity of this
Act was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that this was the tax on the
capital value and assessee of an individual or a Company and therefore fell
within the scope of Entry 86 of List 1 of the VII Schedule of the Constitution
and not under Entry 49 of List 2. On this basis it was urged that the State did
not have the statutory authority to impose such a tax. In dealing with these
questions this Court held as follows:
The word 'tax' in its widest sense includes all money raised by taxation. It
therefore includes taxes levied by the Central and the State legislatures, and
also those known as 'rates", or other charges, levied by local authorities
under statutory powers. "taxation" has therefore been defined in
clause (28) of Article 366 of the Constitution to include "the imposition
of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special", and it has
been directed that "tax" shall be "construed
accordingly"." Thus it is to be seen that even though the term
"tax" has been given a wide interpretation to include all monies
raised, the levy still has to be by the Central or State legislatures or by
some statutory authority. In Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd.'s case the
imposition was under a statute enacted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus the levy was by the State. It
was thus held that that levy fell within the definition of the term "other
present case, it has already been held by this Court in Ispat Industries' case
that there is no backing of any statutory provision for the creation of these
funds. Further it has already been held, and in our view correctly, that these
main steel plants were the only member steel plants. The levy was only on them
and the fund was created for the utilization by these member steel plants only.
Also to be noted that even though the Essential Commodities Act empowers
regulation of price, it does not empower imposition of any taxes. The addition
of an element to the ex- works price has no statutory backing or force. It is
not by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority.
It is a levy by a Committee majority of whose members are representatives of
the steel plants. The purpose of creating funds is for the benefit of these
member steel plants. Such a levy, even though, it may be compulsory can never
Desai then submitted that what was being added was an element to the ex-works
price. He submitted that this element cannot be considered to be price on which
excise duty has to be paid. It was pointed out to us that, on this question,
the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (CEGAT, Delhi)
had, in the case of SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (90)
ELT 502, held that as the manufacturers were compelled by law to collect this
charge over and above the price without right to appropriate it for themselves
and with duty of making it over a third party i.e. the JPC, the charges could
not be regarded as part of the consideration for the sale price of the goods.
It was held that these charges could not be added for determining the
pointed out that another matter appeared before the Calcutta branch of CEGAT. The earlier
Judgment of CEGAT was shown to the Calcutta branch. The Calcutta branch in the case of SAIL & Anr.
v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1998 (24) RLT 394
(CEGAT) differed with the earlier Judgment and held that this addition was
nothing but an element of price and that therefore the same had to be included
in determining the assessable value for payment of excise duty.
view of these conflicting decisions, the question was referred to a larger
Bench of CEGAT. In the case of SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar
reported in 2000 (119) ELT 249, the larger Bench held that the normal price was
a price at which the goods were ordinarily sold by the assessee to the buyer.
It was held that if any part of the amount paid by the buyer to the assessee
was not to be appropriated by the assessee then consequently that part cannot
be termed as value for the goods. In coming to this conclusion the larger Bench
had relied on Judgments of this Court which are set out hereinafter.
case of C.I.T. v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 790, the
question was whether a surcharge collected by the assessee Club from all race
goers but which had been earmarked for charity could be deemed to be an income
of the assessee and therefore includible in the taxable income of the assessee.
It was held by this Court that income tax was a tax on income. It was held that
"income" is what reaches the assessee and that it is that income
which is intended to be charged to tax under the Income Tax Act. It was held
that every receipt by the assessee is not necessarily income in his hands. It
was held that the surcharge collected by the assessee was for the purposes of
being paid over to local charities. It was held that this surcharge was clearly
impressed with an obligation in the nature of trust for being applied for the
benefit of charities. It was held that this surcharge was diverted before it
reached the hands of the assessee and did not become part of the income of the assessee.
It was held that such a surcharge would therefore not be regarded as income
assessable to tax.
case of C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills reported in (1979) 1 SCC 496, the question
was whether certain amounts realized by the assessee on account of "Dharmada"
(Charity) in addition to the price from his customers could be stated to be
income in the hands of the assessee which were assessable to income tax. It was
held by this Court that though amount of "Dharmada" was undoubtedly a
payment which the customers were required to pay in addition to the price of
the goods purchased from the assessee. It was held that the purchase of the
goods was only an occasion and not the consideration for the "Dharmada"
amount. It was accepted that without payment of the "Dharmada" amount
the customer would not be able to purchase the goods from the assessee. It was
held that this did not make the payment involuntary because the purchaser
purchased the goods of his own volition.
held that the amount of "Dharmada" was being collected for purposes
of giving to charities and were held by the assessee under an obligation to
spend them for charitable purposes. It was held that these therefore did not
form income of the assessee. It was held that these amounts were not part of
the price of the goods but were payments for specific purpose of being spent on
case of Mohan & Co. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1987 (30)
ELT 624, relying upon the above mentioned two decisions of this Court CEGAT,
Delhi held that "Dharmada" (charity) receipts were not includable in
the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Mr. Desai
submitted that an SLP filed against this order was summarily rejected by this
Desai submitted that all the above authorities including the larger Bench
decision of CEGAT and the decision of CEGAT in Mohan & Co.'s case clearly
show that when there is a compulsory impost or exaction, the assessee has to
collect but the assessee cannot retain for himself and he has to pass on the
same, then such a compulsory exaction cannot be included in the value for
purposes of assessing excise duty. He submitted that such imposts cannot be
deemed to be price. Mr. Desai submitted that the minutes of the JPC dated 16th
January, 1992 as well as the Notification of the same date, make it clear that
what was being added/levied was an element to the ex-works price. He submitted
that the price remained the ex-works price. He submitted that the Companies
sold to the customers at the ex-works price. He submitted that the additional
amount was merely collected by the Companies for and on behalf of JPC and SPC.
He submitted that they did not retain this amount. He submitted that this
element could not be considered to be price.
other hand, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the principles under the Income Tax Act
cannot be made applicable to the Central Excise Act. He submitted that under
the Income Tax Act what is taxable is the actual income received by the assessee
for his own benefit. He submitted, with reference to Section 4 of the said Act,
that under the Central Excise Act excise duty is chargeable on the value of the
goods. He submitted that the value is the price at which the goods are
ordinarily sold by the assessee to the buyer. He submitted that therefore the
price which the buyer pays is the price on which excise duty is leviable. He
submitted that from the price that the buyer pays, the only deductions can be
those set out in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the said Act. He submitted that this
levy is not a "tax" and does not fall within the meaning of the term
"other taxes". He submitted that this element cannot be deducted from
the assessable value of the goods.
further points out that the element which has been added is an "element of
price". He relied upon the Notification dated 16th January, 1992 (which
has been reproduced hereinabove) and points out Clauses 4(i), 4(ii) and 4(iii)
which clearly show that what has been added is an element of price. Mr. Rohtagi
submitted that this element could only have been added as price because the JPC
and SPC are established by virtue of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. He
submitted that the Iron and Steel (Control) Order is based on the Essential
Commodities Act and under that Act there was no power to make any levy or
impose any tax on a purchaser. He submitted that the addition being an element
of price it has to be included in the assessable value for purposes of excise
have heard the parties. In our view, Mr. Rohtagi is right. Principles on which
"income" is to be determined under the Income Tax Act cannot apply
when determining "value" for purposes of Excise Duty. Under the
Income Tax Act, tax is payable on income which reaches the assessee. On the
other hand, Section 4 of the said Act shows that excise is payable on the price
at which goods are ordinarily sold to the buyer. Thus the principles on which Bijli
Cottons Mills' case and Tollygunge Club's case were decided would not be
appropriate and would not apply for deciding "value" for the purposes
of the said Act. In our view the decision of CEGAT in Mohan & Co.'s case
cannot be said to be good law.
supported in our view by the decision in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills v.
State of Rajasthan reported in (1978) 4 SCC 271. In this case the question was
whether the assessee was liable to pay Sales Tax on the amount of railway freight
collected by them from the purchaser. It was held that the assessee was bound
to pay Sales Tax on such amounts. In the case of E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Asst.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in (2000) 2 SCC 321 it was held that
the purchase price is the total amount of consideration for the purchase of
goods. It was held that this would include price and also other amounts payable
by the purchaser. These authorities are under the Sales Tax Act. The principles
for computing value for purposes of Sales Tax are similar to those of computing
value for purposes of Excise Duty. It is these principles which would apply.
event, a plain reading of the Notification makes it clear that what has been
added is an "element of price". Neither JPC nor the SPC could have
made any compulsory exaction from the purchaser. They could only regulate
prices as the powers which they derived are only those which are conferred on
them by the Notification which established them. Clause 8 of the Notification
dated 7th April, 1971 only gave a power to determine the prices. The amended
Clauses (9A) and (9B), which were introduced by Notification dated 27th
December, 1978, also empowered them merely to add elements to the ex-works
price. In other words the ex-works price could be increased by adding an
element to it. Thus what was being added was to the price. Another aspect to be
kept in mind is ultimate beneficiaries of these amounts are the steel plants
view therefore the view expressed by the larger Bench of CEGAT, Delhi cannot be
said to be the correct view. In our view, the decision of CEGAT, Calcutta in
SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (90) ELT 502 is correct.
this view of the matter, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed. The
Appeals filed by the Companies against the Judgment, in the case of SAIL v. Collector
of Central Excise reported in 1997 (90) ELT 502 are dismissed.
told that in some of the matters the question of a proper calculation of the
duty also arises. We are told that CEGAT did not undertake the exercise of
proper calculation as they held in favour of the assessee. In those cases where
a question of re-calculation arises, the matters will necessarily stand
referred back to CEGAT for determination of the exact amounts in accordance
with law. Parties to jointly intimate the Office, a list of such matters. In
case of dispute liberty to apply.
these directions the Appeals stand disposed of. There will be no order as to