COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-IversusBISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.

           COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I
                                       v.
                                                                                    A
                   BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.

                                JULY 27, 2005

                   [B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                               B

      Central Excise Act, 1944/Central Excise (Valuation ) Rules, 1975-
Section 41 Rules 5-Aerated water-Assessable Value of-Whether includes
amounts received as 'price support incentive' and 'rent on containers'-
Held: The amounts received is not includible in the assessable value of the C
aerated water-Jn the facts of the case no extra commercial considerations
have entered the transaction-The levy of rent on containers did not form
price of the aerated water.

      Respondent-Assessee was manufacturer of aerated water. It obtained the
concentrate (raw-material) from a Company, used to bottle the same and sold D
to the wholesale dealers. Assessee used to collect rent on containers from
some of the dealers and it also used to receive price support incentives from
the raw material supplier.

      The question for consideration in the case was whether the cost of rent
on containers and the value of price support incentive were liable to be included   E
in the assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules,
1975. Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. Under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood at
the material time, price is adopted as a measure or a yardstick for assessing F
the tax. The said measure or yardstick is not conclusive of the nature of the
tax. Under section 4, price and sale are related concepts. The "value" of the
excisable article has to be computed with reference to the price charged by
the manufacturer, the computation being made in accordance with section 4.
In every case, it will be for the Revenue to determine on evidence-whether the
transaction is one where extra-commercial considerations have entered and, G
if so, what should be the price to be taken into account as the value of the
excisable article for the purpose of excise duty; (845-G, H; 846-AJ

     Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International ltd. etc., AIR
(1984) SC 420, relied on.
                                      841                                           H
    842                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
                                                                 ''
A         2. There is no evidence of flow back of any additional consideration from
    the buyers of aerated water (beverage) to the assessee. On account of cut-
    throat competition from another Company, the Company which used to supply
    raw material to the assessee, had to provide incentive to the assessee. On the
    other hand, the evidence on record indicates that price uniformity was
B   maintained. No favour for extra commercial reasons was shown to any of the
    buyers of aerated water. There is no evidence of any concession to any of the
    buyers. There is no evidence of existence of any favoured buyers. In the
    circumstances, Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 is not
    applicable. [846-D, E]

C         3. So far as rent on containers is concerned, the rent equivalent to
    interest was collected by the assessee on account of delay in returning of
    empty crates/bottles. The purpose of charging interest was to get back empty
    bottles/crates immediately as otherwise the assessee was required to make
    additional investment towards stock inventory on crates/empty bottles. Further,
    the said levy did not form the price of the aerated water and, therefore, ROC
D   was not includible in the assessable value. [846-F, G]

          Collector of Central Excise v. Jndian Oxygen, (1988) 36 ELT 730, relied
    on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 772 of200 I.
E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.99 of the Central Excise, Customs
    and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in F.O. No. 1558/99-A. No.
    E/2438/98-A.
                                        WITH
F        C.A. Nos. 769, 770, 771, 1403-1404/2001, 6765/2002, 120, 1763, 5215-5219/
    2004 and 672 of2005.

         Rajiv Dutta, Add. Solicitor General, Shalini Kumar, Ravindra Agarwal, P.
    Parmeswaran, B.K. Prasad and S.N. Terdol with him for the Appellant.

G        Dushyant Dave, V. Lakshmi Kumaran, M.P. Devnath, Alok Yadav, Rajesh
    Kumar, Maninder Singh, Pratibha M. Singh, Kirtiman Singh, Abhinav Mukerji,
    Pradeep Jain, Ms. Hetu Arora, Rupesh Kumar, Neelam Sharma, T.C. Shanna,
    B.V. Desai, Vinay Yaish, Hitender Mehta, Amit Awasthi, Sanjeev K. Singh,
    Pradeep K. Malik, Sheenam Parwands, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mis. Aruptham
H   Aruna & Co. and V. Balachandran with him for the Respondents.
                  C.C.E. v. BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [KAPADIA, J.]             843
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                   A
~.

                KAPADIA, J. A short question which arises for detennination in these
          appeals filed by the department under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise
          Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act") is - whether the assessee had undervalued
          the aerated water by excluding two items, namely, the amounts received under
          credit notes as price support incentive and rent on containers (ROC) from the      B
          assessable value?

                For the sake of convenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts in civil
          appeal no. 772 of 200 I, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-
          I v. Bisleri International Private Limited (formerly known as Mis Coolade
          Beverages Ltd.).                                                                   c
                M/s. Coolade Beverages Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee")
          were manufacturers of aerated waters. The manufacturing activity of the
          assessee basically consisted of bottling. The assessee obtained the concentrate
          (raw-material) for aerated water from a subsidiary of Coca Cola Corporation.
                                                                                          D
          The name of that subsidiary was Mis Britco Food Company Ltd. (hereinafter
          referred to as "M/s Britco"). The assessee sold the bottled aerated water to
          the wholesale dealers.

                 The department found that the assessee used to collect from some
          wholesale dealers ROC@ Rs.7.50 per crate. The department further found that E
t.
          the assessee used to receive price support incentives in the form of credit
          notes from M/s Britco. Accordingly, the department issued show-cause notice
          contending that the cost of ROC and the value of price support incentive
          were liable to be included in the assessable value in terms of rule 5 of the
          Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The assessee contested the show-
          cause notice. The assessee submitted that the ROC had no relation to the F
          value of the aerated water; that the leasing of the bottles was a separate
          activity which had no connection with the manufacture of aerated water and,
          therefore, realizations from such ancillary activity were not includible in the
          assessable value of the aerated water. In this connection, the assessee placed
          reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Central
                                                                                          G
          Excise v. Indian Oxygen ltd., reported in 1988 (36) ELT 730.

{               With regard to the amounts received as price support incentive from
     .,
          Mis Britco, the assessee contended that the said payment was immaterial to
          the wholesale price of the aerated water; that the sale to the wholesale dealers
.         was on principal to principal basis and that the wholesale price was the sole      H
    844                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A consideration. Therefore, the sale price constituted the 'normal price' under
    section 4(1 )(a) of the said Act and that rule 5 of the said Rules, 1975 had no
    application to the facts of the present case.

         The Commissioner accepted the submissions of the assessee and
    dropped the duty demand contained in the show cause notice.
B
          So far as the price support incentive was concerned, the Commissioner
   held that the credit notes were not received from the buyers· of aerated water;
   that they were received from M/s Britco (supplier of concentrate); that the
   credit notes were received from M/s Britco on account of reduction in the
   price of the concentrates and, therefore, the question of including the amount
C received under such credit notes in the assessable value did not arise. The
   commissioner further held that no additional consideration had flown directly
   from the buyers of aerated water and, therefore, rule 5 was not applicable to
   the facts of the present case. The commissioner further found that the benefit
  .of reduction in prices of concentrates was in fact passed on by the assessee
D to the buyers in the form of reduced sale price of the aerated waters; that,
   with effect from 12.9.1994, the sale price of aerated water was reduced by
   Rs.27 per crate i.e. from Rs. 108 per crate to Rs. 81 per crate whereas the gain
   to the assessee from the credit notes was only Rs. 1.66 per crate and,
   therefore, there was no additional consideration flowing back to the assessee
   from their buyers. The commissioner further found that with effect from
E 12.9.1994, the assessable value went up from Rs.46 per crate to Rs.52 per
   crate. The commissioner further found that the consumers were benefited on
   account of acute competition between Coca Cola and Pepsi. In the
   circumstances, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the
   department had erred in invoking rule 5.
F         On the question of ROC, the commissioner came to the conclusion that
    the facts of the present case were similar to the facts in. the case of Collector
    of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen, (supra). The commissioner found that in
    the present case also, the ROC was related to an ancillary activity; that the
    said ROC had no connection with the manufacture of aerated water and,
G   therefore, ROC was not includible in its assessable value.

          Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the department went in appeal to
    the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred
    to as "the Tribunal"). By impugned decision, the tribunal confirmed the order
    of the adjudicating authority (commissioner). Hence, this civil appeal.
H
        C.C.&. v. BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [KAPADIA, J.]           845
       Mr. Rajiv Datta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the A
department submitted that the assessee had reduced their wholesale price on
instructions of M/s Coca Cola Company in order to lower the incidence of
excise duty; that this reduction in price of aerated water was compensated by
issuance of credit notes by Mis Britco (subsidiary ofM/s Coca Cola Company);
that the giving of price support incentive by M/s Britco to the assessee
constituted additional consideration which in turn depressed the prices of B
aerated water and, therefore, the entire arrangement was entered into in order
to lower the incidence of excise duty. It was further submitted that M/s Britco
the manufacturer of concentrates (raw-material) had nothing to do with the
marketing activity of the assessee. It was urged that M/s Britco was a medium
to flow back the additional consideration to the assessee. It was urged that C
but for the credit notes issued by Mis Britco, the assessee was required to
increase the assessable value and the sale price of aerated water. It was
submitted that with the reduction of the prices of aerated water, the sales had
increased which was directly relatable to the reduction in prices. It. was
submitted that the price support incentive was given by Mis Britco to the D
ass.essee in order to make good the loss sustained by the assessee in making
the price of aerated water competitive. It was submitted that receipt of price
support by the assessee was enough evidence to justify that the normal price
was more than the price actually charged to the buyer. Learned counsel
further submitted that the prices of the product were lowered on account of
incentive received by the assessee from Mis Britc_o (supplier of the raw- E
material).

       At the outset, it may be mentioned that under section 4(l)(a), "value"
in relation to any excisable goods is a function of the price. In other words,
"value" is derived from the normal price at the factory gate charged to an
unrelated person on wholesale basis and at the time and place of removal.        F
      It is for the department to examine the entire evidence on record in order
to detennine whether the transaction is one prompted by extra-commercial
considerations. It is well settled that under section 4 of the said Act, as it
stood at the material time, price is adopted as a measure or a yardstick for G
assessing the tax. The said measure or yardstick is not conclusive of the
nature of the tax. Under section 4, price and sale are related concepts. The
"value" of the excisable article has to be computed with reference to the price
charged by the manufacturer, the computation being made in accordance with
section 4. In every case, it will be for the revenue to determine on evidence
whether the transaction is one where extra-commercial considerations have H
      846                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

· A   entered and, if so, what should be the price to be taken into account as the
      value of the excisable article for the purpose of excise duty. These principles
      have been laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of
      India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. reported in AIR 1984
      SC420.

 B          The short question which arises for determination in the present case
      is - whether the depaitment has been able to show that the intrinsic price of
      aerated water was more than the price actually charged to the buyer? According
      to the department, the actual price was lower on account of incentives given
      by Mis Britco, the supplier of concentrates to the assessee. As found by the
 C    adjudicating authority as well as by the tribunal, the prices had to be reduced
      by the assessee on account of competition in the market. Further, the prices
      stood reduced on account of concession given by Mis Britco, supplier of
      concentrates· (raw-material), to the assessee. There is no evidence of flow
      back of any additional consideration from the buyers of aerated water
      (beverage) to the assessee. On account of cut throat competition from Pepsi,
 D    Mis Britco had to provide incentive to the assessee. But for the incentive
      from the supplier of concentrates (raw material), the assessee was not in a
      position to face acute competition from Pepsi. On the other hand, the evidence
      on record indicates that price uniformity was ~aintained. No favour for extra
      commercial reasons was shown to any of the buyers of aerated water. There
 E    is no evidence of any concession to any of the buyers. There is no evidence
      of existence of any favoured buyers. In the circumstances, rule 5 is not
      applicable.

             So far as ROC is concerned, the commissioner found that the rent
      equivalent to interest was collected by the assessee on account of delay in
 F    returning of empty crates/bottles. The purpose of charging interest was to get
      back empty bottles/crates immediately as otherwise the assessee was required
      to make additional investment towards stock inventory on crates/empty bottles.
       Further, the said levy did not form the price of the aerated water and, therefore,
      ROC was not includible in the assessable value. In the circumstances, the
 G    commissioner was right in applying the ratio of the judgment of this Court
      in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen, (supra).

            For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in these appeals preferred
      by the department. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed with no order
      as to costs.
 H
      K.K.T.                                                         Appeal dismissed.