COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE versus HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 250, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
[2016] l S.C.R. 250 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 
v. 
HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED 
(Civil Appeal No.1829 of 2008) 
JANUARY 14, 2016. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act, 1944 - Under Valuation - Short payment 
of duty - Manufacturers-assessee received advance from purchasers 
for the goods and was giving discount to the said companies -
Non-addition of additional consideration received from customers 
in form of advance, thus, notional interest accrued thereon is to be 
added to sale price - Non-addition resulting in depression of 
assessable value of the goods - Demand raised by Adjudicating 
Authority being duty payable on the said additional consideration 
as also imposition of penalty - Appeal before tribunal - Tribunal 
held that the revenue had not been able to discharge the onus by 
adducing cogent material evidence that the advances obtained from 
buyer had been instrumental in depression of price; and that there 
was no nexus of interest with price, thus, the order of demand was 
not acceptable and no penalty could be levied - On appeal, held: 
Sale price agreed between two competing parties may get depressed, 
when substantial and huge advances are periodically extended and 
given with the objective and purpose that the sale price paid or 
charged would be lowered, to set off the consideration paid by grant 
of advances - There should be a connect and link between the two 
i.e. the money advanced it
should be established was a consideration 
F 
paid which could form the basis for depression of sale price -
Evidence and material to establish the same should be placed on 
record - On facts, there has to be application of mind by the tribunal 
regard being had to the amount of money paid by purchasers, and 
what is the effect of the sales made to the two companies in percentile 
G 
terms, whether this had the effect of depressing the sale price -
Onus would be on the revenue - Revenue granted liberty to produce 
the documents to discharge the onus - Matter remitted to the tribunal 
for fresh disposal. 
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hero 
Honda Motors Ltd. (2005) 4 SCC 182:2005 (3) 
H 
SCR 588; Metal Box India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central 
250
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE v. HINDUSTAN 
251 
NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 
Excise, Madras (1995) 2 SCC 90:1995 (1) SCR 136 -
A 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (3) SCR 588 
1995 (1) SCR 136 
referred to. 
Para 5 
referred to. 
Para 6 
From the Judgment and Order No. A/637/20071C-ii(EB) dated 
17 .09 .2007 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 
West Zonal Bench in Appeal No. E/1104104. 
Yashank Adhyaru, Nisha Bagchi, A.K. Srivastava, Pooja Sharma, 
B 
B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. 
c 
Aarohi Bhalla, Anlcit Singh, Sujata Kurdukar for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. A show cause notice under F. No. Prevl 
CEX/AEI/OBL/ 141/991797 dated 16'" August, 2002, was issued to Ml D 
s. Owens Brockway (I) Pvt. Ltd., the predecessor-company of the 
respondent which is presently known as Hindustan National Glass and 
Industries Limited, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, 
alleging that the manufacturing company was not adding the additional 
consideration received from the customers in the form of advance and, 
therefore, the notional interest accrued thereon is to be added to the sale 
E 
price, for such non-addition had resulted in depression of the assessable 
value of the goods, namely, the bottles manufactured by the respondent-
assessee. 
2. In the show qmse notice, it was mentioned that the assessee 
had short paid the duty on its products, that is, printed glass bottles, by
under-valuing the same at the time of clearance from its factory inasmuch 
as it did not add "additional consideration" received from Mis. Coca 
Cola India and Mis. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The show cause 
notice referred to the statement of the Manager (Sales) of the Company 
from which it was discernible that the respondent-assessee had received 
90% advance from Mis. Coca Cola India and 100% advance from Mis. 
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for the goods and it was giving 3-4% 
discount to the said Companies. 
3. After the reply to the show cause was received, the adjudicating 
authority passed an order on 28'' November, 2003, making a demand of 
F 
G 
Rs. 33,91,934,001- under Section llA(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 
H
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
(for short "the Act") being the duty payable on the additional consideration 
received by the assessee from the customers in the form of notional 
interest accrued on advance payments and also imposed penalty for the 
same amount under Section llAC of the Act. Apart from that, the 
adjudicating authority confirmed certain other demands. 
B 
4. Being grieved by the aforesaid orderofthe adjudicating authority, 
the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise 
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for 
short, 'the tribunal'). Initially, the matter was heard by two Members 
consisting of Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical). The Member 
(Technical) came to hold that the revenue had not been able to discharge 
C 
the onus by adducing cogent material evidence that the advances obtained 
from a buyer had really been instrumental in depression of the price. 
Learned Member further opined that there was no nexus of interest 
with the price and hence, the demand was not acceptable and 
consequently, no penalty could be levied. 
D 
5. The Member (Judicial) adverted to the order passed by the 
Commissioner wherein the statement of the Manager (Sales) had been 
adumbrated in detail, referred to the other documents that had been put-
forth by the revenue before the adjudicating authority and in course of 
discussion adverted to the principle stated in Commissioner of Central 
E 
Excise, New
Delhi vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.' and opined as follows: 
F 
G 
H 
"In view of the above decision, I am of the opinion that the matter 
needs to be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh examination 
in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 
in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs. CCE referred supra 
and after examining the entire aspect of the use of the advances, 
income generated from the said advances, their contribution of 
the pricing structure and their reflection in the Balance-sheet or 
the Annual Reports of the appellants, and the deployment of the 
funds so received by them, as I agree with the learned brother 
Shri Sekhon that onus to prove so is on the Revenue. However, 
the appellants would be at liberty to produce relevant evidences 
before the adjudicating authority in support of their contention 
that the interest accrued on such advances have not in any way 
resulted in depreciation of the price. All other issues are left open 
for the appellants to address before the adjudicating authority." 
1(2005) 4 sec 1s2
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE v. HINDUSTAN 
253 
NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
6. As there was di(ference of opinion, the matter was referred to 
A 
the third Member and the third Member, who was a Judicial Member, 
vide order dated 29"' August, 2007, cogitated on the concept of assessable 
value under the Act, the concept of two prices and eventually opined 
that the decisions in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (supra) and Metal Box 
India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras' are not applicable 
B 
to the case at hand and accordingly concurred with the opinion expressed 
by the Member (Technical). Hence, the revenue is before this Court in 
appeal. 
7. We have heard Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel 
for the appellant-revenue and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for the 
respondent-assessee. 
C 
8. On a scrutiny of the factual score, it is noticeable that the 
respondent-assessee had obtained certain advance sums from some 
companies/users to supply the bottles and on that count it had granted 3-
4 per cent discount. Though the quantum had not been stated precisely, 
yet it has been found as a matter of fact that Mis. Coca Cola India and 
D 
Mis. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had given advances for 90% and 
100% respectively for their purchases. 
9. In Metal Box India Ltd. (supra), the Court while dealing with 
the transaction between the appellant therein and Mis. Ponds (I) Ltd., 
who was a whole-sale buyer of the appellant's goods,
had accepted the 
E 
view of the tribunal and expressed thus: 
"On the facts on record, therefore, it must be held that the Tribunal 
was perfectly justified in taking the view that charging a separate 
price for the metal containers supplied to Mis Ponds (I) Limited 
could not stand justified under Section 4(l)(a) proviso and, 
F 
therefore, to that separate price charged from the Ponds (I) Limited, 
the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee on interest-free 
loan was required to be reloaded by hiking the price charged from 
Mis. Ponds (I) Limited to that extent. Contention 2 also, therefore, 
fails and is rejected." 
G 
10. In Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (supra), the question that arose 
for determination is whether receipt of advance and the income accruing 
thereon, had gone towards the depreciation of the sale price. In that 
context, the Court opined that there is conspectus of decisions which 
clearly establish that inclusion of notional interest in the assessable value 
H 
2(1995) 2 sec 90
254 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
or wholesale price will depend upon the facts of each case. The three-
Judge Bench adverted to the facts of the case, the agreement existing 
between the parties and the lower price at which the respondent-assessee 
therein had sold the motor-cycles and after analysing the factual matrix 
opined as follows: 
"For the above reasons, we hold that the tribunal has disposed of 
the appeal before it in a most perfunctory manner without going 
into any figures at all but by merely on the statement made by 
counsel and on the basis of material which appears to have been 
produced first time before the tribunal. We, therefore, set aside 
the order of the tribunal and remand the matter back to the tribunal. 
The tribunal will consider in detail, if necessary, by taking the help 
of a Cost Accountant and after looking into the accounts of the 
respondent whether or not the advances or any part thereof have 
been used in the working capital and whether or not the advances 
received by the respondent and/or the interest earned thereon 
have been used in the working capital and/or whether it has the 
effect of reducing the price of the motorcycle. The tribunal to so 
decide on the material which was placed before the Commissioner 
and not to allow any additional documents/materials to be filed 
before it. None of our observations made herein shall bind the 
tribunal to which this case is remitted." 
11. In the case at
hand, the Member (Judicial) has remitted the 
matter to the competent authority to deal with it afresh in the light of the 
decision rendered in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (supra). 
12. Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee 
would submit that when no evidence was adduced by the revenue at 
any point of time and the law is settled that the onus is on the revenue to 
establish that there has been depression of assessable value, the majority 
view of the tribunal cannot be found fault with. 
13. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing for 
the appellant-revenue would submit that the documents were produced 
before the adjudicating authority as well as the tribunal to show the 
nature of advance and the manner of transaction from which it is 
demonstrable that there has been depression of the assessable value. 
14. On a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner, it is 
seen that observations have been made on certain aspects and inferences 
have been drawn. It cannot be said that no material was produced by 
the revenue. The concerned Commissioner has taken note of the
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE v. HINDUSTAN 
NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
statement made by the Manager (Sales) of the assessee-Company. An 
aspect raised relates to percentage of total sales made to two companies, 
but the core issue is whether there was a depression of the sale price on 
account of receipt of advance. In the case of Metal Box India Ud. 
(supra), the facts were extremely clear as there was an agreement that 
Mis. Ponds (I) Ltd. had given 50% advance with a stipulation that it 
would purchase 90% of the manufactured goods. !twas a case where 
a separate price was charged. In the case of Hero Honda Motors lid. 
(supra), the facts, as we perceive, were not clear and, therefore, there 
was a remit. Be it noted, sale price agreed between two competing 
parties may get depressed, when substantial and huge advances are 
periodically extended and given with the objective and purpose that the 
sale price paid or charged would be lowered, to set off the consideration 
paid by grant of advances. There should be a connect and link between 
the two i.e. the money advanced it should be established was a 
consideration paid which could form the basis for depression of sale 
price. Evidence and material to establish the said factual matrix has to 
be uncovered and brought on record to connect and link the sale price 
paid on paper and the "other" consideration, not gratis, but by way of 
interest free advances. 
15. In our considered opinion, in
the present case, there has to be 
application of mind by the tribunal regard being had to the amount of 
money paid by purchasers, namely, Mis. Coca Cola India and Mis. Pepsico 
India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and what is the effect of the sales made to the 
two companies in percentile terms, whether this had the effect of 
depressing the sale price. 
The onus would be on the revenue. That 
being the thrust of the matter, liberty is granted to the revenue to produce 
the documents in this regard to discharge the onus. As we are remitting 
the matter, we may note one submission of the respondent-assessee. It 
is urged by the learned counsel that when the entire activities were 
within the knowledge of the excise authorities, penalty is not leviable. 
Needless to emphasize, the tribunal shall advert to the said submission, if 
required, in the ultimate eventuate, in proper perspective. 
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the 
tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for fresh 
disposal keeping in view the observations made herein-above. We may 
hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the 
aspects. There shall be no order as to costs. 
255 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed. 
H