Judgment:
Jyoti Balasundaram,
The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely whether in cases where a manufacturer includes equalized price in the price of the goods and sells the goods all over the country at a uniform price, the revenue is entitled to compute value by including the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot stands settled against the revenue by the Apex court decision in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2003 (155) ELT 8 (S.C.)] holding as under: -
"6. We have heard the parties at length. In our? view, Section 4 has to be read as a whole. Under Section 4(1)(a), the normal price is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, the normal price is the price at the time of delivery and at the place of removal. Before the amendment, the place of removal was only the factory or any other place or premises where the excisable goods were produced or manufactured or a warehouse or any other place or premises where any excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. Thus, the price would be the price at that place. By the amendment Section 4(ia) has been added. Under Section 4(ia) where the price of the goods is different for different places of removal, each such price was deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to such place of removal. Thus, if the place of removal was the factory, then the price would be normal price at the factory. If place of removal was some other place like a depot or the premises of a consignment agent and the price was different then that different price would be the price. It is because newly added Section 4(ia) was now providing for different prices at different places of removal that the definition of the term place of Removal had to be enlarged. Thus the amendment was not negative the judgments of this Court. If that had been the intention it would have been specifically provided that even where price was the same/uniform all over the country, the cost of transportation was to be added.
7. Thus, in cases where the price remains? Un form or constant all over the country, it does not follow that value for purpose of excise changes merely because the definition of the term place of removal is extended. The normal price remains the price at the time of delivery and at the place of removal. In cases of equalized freight it remains the same as per the judgments of this Court set out herein above."
The Apex Court had held that the amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 28.02.1996, which according to the department alters earlier position settled by the Apex Court, does not make any defence to the earlier position. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order holding that cost of transportation from the factory to the depot is not to be included in the assessable value and reject the appeal.
2. The cross objection is in the nature of reply to the revenues appeal and is accordingly dismissed.