{"id":10189,"date":"1988-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988"},"modified":"2016-02-20T21:03:57","modified_gmt":"2016-02-20T15:33:57","slug":"indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","title":{"rendered":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1809, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 687<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDIAN OXYGEN LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1809\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 687\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  658\t  JT 1988 (3)\t291\n 1988 SCALE  (2)291\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1990 SC 977\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Central  Excises\tand  Salt  Act,\t 1944.:\t Section  4-\nValuation  of\texcisable  goods-When  ex-factory  price  is\nascertainable, assessment  to be  made on that basis only-If\nex-factory price  is not  ascertainable and assessment to be\nmade ex-depots\/service\tcentres, deductions  may be  claimed\ntowards charges for transportation, delivery and collection,\nand charges for loading within the premises, on the basis of\nactual evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  has been manufacturing compressed oxygen\nand dissolved  acetylene, falling  under tariff item No. 14H\nof the\tFirst Schedule\tto the Act. These items were sold to\nGovernment undertakings at the rates determined by DGS&D. In\nrespect of other buyers the appellant charges prices on slab\nbasis which  is\t related  to  quantitative  discount.  These\nprices were  found to be much more than the prices indicated\nin the\tapproved price\tlist. The  appellant did not furnish\nquantities of  the products  sold  from\t its  depots\/service\ncentres.  Apart\t from  the  declared  price,  the  appellant\ncharged delivery  and collection  charges, cylinder  deposit\nand rentals.\n     The appellant  explained that  the difference in prices\nwas due\t to special delivery and collection charges incurred\nfor transporting  the goods from the place of manufacture to\nthe depot  from where it was sold. The appellant's claim for\nabatements of  account of  freight and\thandling charges was\nnot accepted  as no  evidence was  produced for the same. In\nrespect of  the price  lists submitted\tby the appellant for\napproval, show\tcause notices  were  issued.  The  appellant\nreplied that  in the  past, under  similar circumstances the\nclaim for  abatement had  been upheld  by the Department and\ntherefore, there  was no reason to deviate from the previous\npractice. The  Assistant Collector  rejected  the  plea\t and\napproved the  price list  after disallowing the abatement on\naccount of  freight  and  handling  charges.  The  appellant\npreferred an  appeal before  the Collector of Central Excise\n(Appeals) which was dismissed. Thereafter both the appellant\nand the\t Assistant Collector  filed separate  appeals before\nthe Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.\n688\n     The Tribunal emphasised that the ex-factory prices were\nascertainable and  there was no scope of deduction from that\nprice. However\tit directed  that if  ex-factory prices were\nnot ascertainable  and the  goods were\tto be  assessed\t ex-\ndepot, then  it would  be for  the appellant to claim on the\nbasis of  actual evidence,  and remanded  the  case  to\t the\nAssistant  Collector   to   refix   the\t  assessable   value\naccordingly. These  appeals under  section 35L(b) of the Act\nare against the Tribunal's decision.\n     Disposing of these appeals,\n^\n     HELD: 1. The cost of transportation from factory to the\ndepot cannot  normally be  included in\tcomputation  of\t the\nvalue under  Section 4(1)(a) read with section 4(4)(d)(i) of\nthe Act.  Where the  wholesale price is ascertainable at the\nfactory gate, the question of transportation charges becomes\nentirely irrelevant.  The cost\tof transportation  from\t the\nfactory gate  to the  place of delivery and transit expenses\nwere not  to be added to the wholesale price at factory gate\nfor purpose  of duty under the Act. It is clear from section\n4 that\tthe delivery  and collection charges have nothing to\ndo with\t the manufacture  as they  are for  delivery of\t the\nfilled cylinders  and collection  of  the  empty  cylinders.\nThese charges have to be excluded from the assessable value.\nInsofar as  the loading\t charges incurred  for\tloading\t the\ngoods within  the factory  are concerned,  they\t are  to  be\nincluded in  the assessable  value, irrespective  of who has\npaid for the same, but the loading expenses incurred outside\nthe factory  gate are excludible. Duty of excise is a tax on\nthe manufacture,  not a\t tax on the profits made by a dealer\non transportation. [690F-H; 691A]\n     2. In  the instant\t case, there is a clear finding that\nthe ex-factory\tprice was ascertainable. If once that is the\nposition that should be the basis upon which the value is to\nbe determined,\tthe other expenses, costs or charges must be\nexcluded. [693B]\n     Union  of\tIndia  &  Ors.\tetc.  etc.  v.\tBombay\tTyre\nInternational Ltd. etc. etc., [1984] 1 SCR 347 referred to.\n     [This Court  observed that\t the Tribunal's\t order stood\nmodified accordingly and directed the Assistant Collector to\nre-fix the assessable value as indicated in this judgment. ]\n[693C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2801-
\n06 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
689<\/span><\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  8.7.1987  of\t the
\nCustoms Excise\tand Gold  (Control) Appellate  Tribunal, New
\nDelhi in Appeal Nos. E 1533, 1521, 1528-30 & 1531 of 1986and
\nOrder No.498 to 503 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli J.  Sorabji, V.J.  Francis, N.M. Popli, Mrs. Nisha
\nBagchi and S. Ganesh for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Mrs.  Indu\t  Malhotra  and\t  P.  Parmeshwaran  for\t the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These are appeals under Section
\n35L(b) of  the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter
\ncalled ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   manufactures  compressed\t Oxygen\t and
\ndissolved acetylene falling under tariff item No. 14H of the
\nFirst Schedule\tof the Act as it stood at the relevant time.
\nThe appellant  had received  showcause notice  in respect of
\nthe period  from 1.1.1984  to 31.1.1984\t and also five other
\nshow-cause notices  for different periods, in respect of the
\nprice lists  submitted by  the appellant seeking approval of
\nthe price  list of  gases in  question. It  was found by the
\nTribunal that  the appellant  manufactures and\tsells oxygen
\nand D.A.  Gases. These\tare sold  from the  factory  of\t the
\nappellant at  Visakhapatanam and  from\ttheir  depot\/service
\ncentres at  Vijayawada, Rajamundry,  Vadlapudi, Jeypore\t and
\nDamanjodi.   They   sell   their   product   to\t  Government
\nundertakings as\t per the  rates determined  by DGS  & D, New
\nDelhi. In  respect of  other buyers the appellant sell their
\nproduct at  various prices  on slab basis. It is stated that
\nthe slab  basis is  related to what the manufacturers call a
\nquantitative  discount.\t  According  to\t the  Tribunal,\t the
\nrevenue had undertaken verification of the prices charged by
\nthe manufacturers at their depots and service centres. These
\nwere found  to be much more than the prices indicated in the
\napproved price list. It also observed that the manufacturers
\ndid not\t furnish  to  the  department  quantities  of  their
\nproduct which  were sold  from their  depots\/service centres
\nand that the appellant charged from their buyers, apart from
\nthe declared price list, the following:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Delivery    and    collection\t   charges    (where
\n\t  applicable);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Cylinder deposit; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) Rentals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
690<\/span><\/p>\n
     The department’s  case was\t that these being additional
\ncharges, should form part of the assessable value.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  urged on  behalf of  the revenue that the price
\nlist submitted by the manufacturers in respect of clearances
\nfrom their Vijayawada depot the appellant claimed abatements
\non account  of freight\tand handling  charges in  respect of
\nwhich they  did not produce any evidence. It was, therefore,
\nheld  by   the\tDepartment   that  no\tsuch  deduction\t was
\nadmissible. It,\t however, appeared  to the Tribunal that the
\nmanufacturers  have   admitted\tthat  separate\tprices\twere
\nindicated for  the same\t goods in  respect of  Visakhapatnam
\nfactory which  is the place of manufacture and Vijayawada, a
\nplace about  400 Km.  away which  is only  a depot.  It\t was
\nexplained  that\t  the  difference   in\tthe  prices  was  in
\nconsideration of  special delivery  and\t collection  charges
\nwhich were  admittedly incurred\t for transporting  the goods
\nfrom Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada.\n<\/p>\n
     The Tribunal  noted that  the appellant  had  not\tcome
\nforward to offer concrete evidence of actual freight charges
\netc. It,  however, emphasised  that the price at the factory
\ngate is ascertainable. Assessment should, therefore, be made
\nin terms  of that  price.  Hence,  there  was  no  scope  of
\ndeduction from\tthat price.  It, therefore, directed that if
\nthe ex-factory\tprices were  not ascertainable and the goods
\nwere to\t be assessed  ex-depot, then  it would\tbe  for\t the
\nmanufacturer to\t claim on  the basis  of actual evidence. It
\nremanded the  case to  the Asstt.  Collector  to  refix\t the
\nassessable-value as  directed. It  is necessary to reiterate
\nthe principle  upon which  the assessable-value will have to
\nbe determined  in this case. The cost of transportation from
\nfactory at  Visakhapatnam and the depot at Vijayawada cannot
\nbe included  normally in computation of the value. The value
\nhas to\tbe computed  under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section
\n4(4)(d)(i)  of\t the  Act,  Where  the\twholesale  price  is
\nascertainable  at   the\t factory   gate,  the\tquestion  of
\ntransportation charges becomes entirely irrelevant. The cost
\nof transportation  from the  factory gate  to the  place  of
\ndelivery and  transit expenses\twere not  to be added to the
\nwholesale price\t at factory  gate for purposes of duty under
\nthe Act.  In this case the price of the goods at the factory
\ngate Visakhapatnam is known. It is clear from Section 4 that
\nthe delivery  and collection charges have nothing to do with
\nthe manufacture\t as they  are for  delivery  of\t the  filled
\ncylinders and  collection  of  the  empty  cylinders.  These
\ncharges have  to  be  excluded\tfrom  the  assessable-value.
\nInsofar as  the loading\t charges incurred  for\tloading\t the
\ngoods within  the factory  are concerned,  they\t are  to  be
\nincluded in  the assessable-value,  irrespective of  who has
\npaid for the same but
\n691<\/span>
\nthe loading  exepnses incurred\toutside the factory gate are
\nexcludible. Duty  of excise is a tax on the manufacture, not
\na tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  necessary to reiterate that value for assessable
\ngoods must  be determined  in terms of section 4 of the Act.
\nThe said section 4(1) provides that where the duty of excise
\nis chargeable  on any  excisable  goods\t with  reference  to
\nvalue, such  value shall, subject to the other provisions of
\nthis section  be deemed\t to be\tthe normal  price therefore,
\nthat is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily
\nsold by\t the assessee  to a buyer in the course of wholesale
\ntrade for  delivery at\tthe time and place or removal, where
\nthe buyer  is not a related person and the price is the sole
\nconsideration for the sale. “Place of removal” under section
\n4(4)(b) has  been defined  to mean  a factory  or any  other
\nplace or  premises  of\tproduction  or\tmanufacture  of\t the
\nexcisable goods\t or  a\twarehouse  or  any  other  place  or
\npremises wherein  the excisable goods have been permitted to
\nbe deposited  without payment of duty, from which such goods
\nare removed.  The scope\t of determination  of value has been
\nexplained and reiterated by this Court in Union of India and
\nothers etc.  etc. v.  Bombay Tyre  International  Ltd.\tetc.
\netc., [1984]  1 S.C.R.\t347. Following\tthe principle of the
\nsaid case  the Tribunal\t noted in  the judgment under appeal
\nthat the  price ex-factory is ascertainable. If once that is
\nthe position  as the Tribunal rightly pointed out, the issue
\nof deduction  of rate  from the\t prices ex-depots  does\t not
\nsurvive for  the decision. But if the ex-factory prices were
\nnot ascertainable  and the  goods were\tto be assessable ex-
\ndepot, then it would be for the manufacturer to claim on the
\nbasis of  actual evidence  the\tdeductions  that  should  be
\nadmissible from\t the price list as per the provisions of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for  the  respondent,  Ms.\t Indu  Malhotra\t who
\nargued this  case with\tconsiderable ability  before us drew
\nour attention  to the  following observations  in the Bombay
\nTyre International  (supra) at\tpages 376  and\t377  of\t the
\nreport:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Accordingly, we  hold that pursuant to the old s.
\n\t  4(a) the  value of  an excisable  article for\t the
\n\t  purpose of  the excise  levy should be taken to be
\n\t  the price  at which  the excisable article is sold
\n\t  by the  assessee to a buyer at arm’s length in the
\n\t  course of wholesale trade at the time and place of
\n\t  removal. Where,  however, the excisable article is
\n\t  not sold  by the  assessee in wholesale trade but,
\n\t  for example,\tis consumed  by the  assessee in his
\n\t  own industry the case is one
\n692<\/span>
\n\t  where under  the old\ts. 4(a)\t the value  must  be
\n\t  determined as,  the price  at which  the excisable
\n\t  article or an article of the like kind and quality
\n\t  is capable of being sold in wholesale trade at the
\n\t  time and place of removal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Where the  excisable article or an article of
\n\t  the like kind and quality is not sold in wholesale
\n\t  trade at  the place  of removal,  that is,  at the
\n\t  factory gate,\t but is\t sold in the wholesale trade
\n\t  at a\tplace outside  the factory  gate, the  value
\n\t  should be  determined as  the price  at which\t the
\n\t  excisable article  is sold  in the wholesale trade
\n\t  at such  place, after deducting therefrom the cost
\n\t  of transportation  of the  excisable article\tfrom
\n\t  the factory gate to such place”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     She also  drew our attention to the observations of the
\nCourt at pages 391 and 392 of the Report:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Therefore, the  expenses incurred  on account  of
\n\t  the several  factors which have contributed to its
\n\t  value upto  the date\tof  sale,  which  apparently
\n\t  would be  the date  of delivery,  are liable to be
\n\t  included. Consequently  where the sale is effected
\n\t  at the  factory gate,\t expenses  incurred  by\t the
\n\t  assessee up  to the date of delivery on account of
\n\t  storage   charges,   outward\t handling   charges,
\n\t  interest on  inventories (stocks  carried  by\t the
\n\t  manufacturer after  clearance), charges  for other
\n\t  services  after  delivery  to\t the  buyer,  namely
\n\t  after-sales  service\tand  marketing\tand  selling
\n\t  organisation\texpenses   including   advertisement
\n\t  expenses can\tnot be\tdeducted. It  will be  noted
\n\t  that advertisement expenses, marketing and selling
\n\t  organisation\texpenses   and\tafter-sales  service
\n\t  promote the marketability of the article and enter
\n\t  into its value in the trade. Where the sale in the
\n\t  course of  wholesale\ttrade  is  effected  by\t the
\n\t  assessee through its sales organisation at a place
\n\t  or places  outside the  factory gate, the expenses
\n\t  incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery
\n\t  under the  aforesaid heads  cannot,  on  the\tsame
\n\t  grounds, be  deducted. But  the assessee  will  be
\n\t  entitled to  a deduction on account of the cost of
\n\t  transportation of  the excisable  article from the
\n\t  factory gate\tto the\tplace or  places where it is
\n\t  sold. The  cost of transportation will include the
\n\t  cost\t of    insurance   on\t the   freight\t for
\n\t  transportation of  the goods from the factory gate
\n\t  to the place or places of delivery.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
693<\/span><\/p>\n
     She contended  that in the instant case, in view of the
\nconduct of  the dealer,\t there was  doubt as to what was the
\nreal ex-factory price. If there was a finding that there was
\nno real\t ex-factory price,  then the  aforesaid observations
\nwould have  required serious  examination. But in this case,
\nthe case  has not  proceeded on that basis. On the contrary,
\nthere is  a clear  finding that there was a ex-factory price
\nwhich is  ascertainable. If  once that\tis the position that
\nshould\tbe   the  basis\t upon  which  the  value  is  to  be
\ndetermined, the\t other expenses,  costs or  charges must  be
\nexcluded.\n<\/p>\n
     Inasmuch as  that is  the correct\tposition in  law, we
\ndirect\tthat   the  Assistant\tCollector  will\t re-fix\t the
\nassessable  value   as\tindicated   in\tthis  judgment.\t The
\nTribunal’s judgment  is modified  accordingly. These appeals
\nare disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\tAppeals disposed of.\n694<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1809, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 687 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1988 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\",\"name\":\"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988","datePublished":"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988"},"wordCount":1813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988","name":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-20T15:33:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-oxygen-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-28-july-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}