Last Updated on
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in determining the assessable value of the medicaments manufactured by the appellant for the purpose of applying the Notification 245/83, the special excise duty payable on the goods should be deducted. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has not accepted the contention that special excise duty is also to be deducted.
2. The Tribunal had occasion to consider the working of this notification in its decision in Ramsay Pharma v. CCE – 1998 (101) E.L.T. 448. It noted that the notification exempted that part of the duty which is in excess of the amount of duty calculated, as indicated in the notification. Paragraphs 4 and 5 which explains respectively the notification itself and the Tribunal’s view as to how it should be worked.
3. It would be noted that the Tribunal has said that the fact of the exemption must be arrived at by taking the fixed retail price, treating it as the cum-duty price, deducting the duty payable, deducting 15% of such amount when arrived at the net value and computing duty at tariff rate on such value. If the price is to be treated as cum-duty price, deduction from that price would include not only the basic excise duty but also the special excise duty. It is for this reason the Tribunal approved the action of the assessee in deducting the basic excise duty and special excise duty.
4. In the light of this manner of interpretation the contention of the Departmental Representative that special excise duty is not a duty of excise is not required to be considered. In any event, the Explanation to the notification refers to excise duty, and not any particular kind of excise duty. It does not refer to excise duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This expression therefore must be construed as including excise duty of all kinds.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order set aside.