Case: M/S. D.J. MALPANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

1. The appellant-assessee manufacture goods falling under Chapter 24 of the Schedule of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?). While selling goods, the appellant-assessee charged the customers invoices for the price of goods plus Dharmada, a charitable donation. According to the appellant, the Dharmada was paid voluntarily by customers and was meant for charity. It was accordingly credited to charity.        2. However, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Nashik issued show cause notices and raised a demand of duty in respect of Dharmada, claiming it was part of the price for the sale of manufactured goods and included it for computing assessable value.        3. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority held that the Dharmada component was not part of the trading receipts and could not be included in the assessable value and dropped the demand for excise duty and the penalty.        4. However, another show cause notice dated 3.8.2001 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad under Section 4 of the Act calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why penalty under Section 173Q and interest under Section 11AA should not be levied. After hearing the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner held vide order dated 26.02.2002 that Dharmada cannot be considered as trading receipts and was not part of the assessable value. Therefore, no duty was payable on the component of Dharmada.        5. Thereafter, in an appeal filed by Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals), however, held that the Dharmada was liable to be included as a part of the assessable value and therefore the goods were liable to be assessed on the basis of their price plus Dharmada.        The Central Excise and Service T ax Appellant Tribunal (for short ?CESTAT?), in an appeal filed by the appellant, by judgment dated 6.1.2005 partly allowed the appeal and held that the duty amount needs to be recalculated. The CESTAT however rejected the appellant?s contention that Dharmada was not part of the transaction value. The CESTAT purported to follow the judgment of this Court in Collector vs. Panchmukhi Engineering Works 2003 (158) ELT 550 (SC), whereby this Court held that Dharmada charged by the assessee is liable to be included in the assessable value.        6. In the appeal filed by the appellant before a Division Bench of this Court, it was contended that the decision in Panchmukhi (supra) followed an earlier decision of T ata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2002 (146) ELT 3 (SC) which did not apply to the present case at all. The T ata Iron & Steel case was a case where steel plants added a surcharge to the ex-works price at the instance of a committee under the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. This surcharge was added to generate money for a steel development fund to implement schemes entrusted to the committee by the Central Government. The surcharge went to the committee for use in its various schemes and for the expenditure incurred towards discharge of the committee?s functions. Thus, the question before this Court was if surcharge being a charge that was compulsorily payable by the customers could be considered as a part of the price i.e. the assessable value.        This Court held that the surcharge was a part of the price fixed by the committee under the statutory provisions. The appellant?s contention was that the decision in Panchmukhi (supra) which merely followed the decision in T ata Iron & Steel (supra) was no authority for the proposition that Dharmada being a donation for charitable purposes was liable to be included in the assessable value.        7. In addition, the appellant contended that this Court has clearly held in the case of The Commissioner of Income T ax (Central) Delhi, New Delhi vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Hathras, District Aligarh (1979) 1 SCC 496     that amounts received for Dharmada and earmarked for charitable purposes are amounts received by the assessee under an obligation to spend the same for charitable purposes. Therefore, these receipts cannot be regarded as income of the assessee.        8. On noticing the above contentions, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.7.2015 has referred the following question to this larger Bench:        Whether the Dharmada collected by the appellant which is clearly an optional payment made by the buyer can be regarded as part of the transaction value for the sale of goods.        9. An important fact that needs to be noted at the outset is that there is no dispute before us that though paid along with the sale price, the payment for Dharmada was made voluntarily by the purchasers and that upon receipt was made over to charity. There is no challenge that it is in fact not voluntary. There are certificates on record by the chartered accountant that shows the Dharmada collection was credited to a separate account and donated to a trust during the period of the show cause notices.

Court's reasoning:
14. In case of a sale of goods, excise duty is chargeable where price is the sole consideration of a sale on `Transaction value?. `Transaction value? means the price actually paid or payable for the goods and any additional amount the buyer is liable to pay to the assessee or anyone on his behalf in connection with the sale vide Section 4(3)(d) supra. Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price and Excisable Goods), Rules 2000 provides that in case of a sale, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value and the amount of money value of any considerations following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. Thus, duty is chargeable on the ?price actually paid for the goods?, in other words, the price paid as consideration for transfer of property in the goods. The test for determining whether in a transaction of sale any amount has been paid as price so that it can be treated as transaction value is only whether, the money was paid for the goods as consideration or the money value on any additional consideration paid in connection with the sale of goods. No amount not paid as consideration for the goods can go to make transaction value. `Consideration? means, vide Garner?s Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3 rd Edition: `the act, forbearance or promise by which one party to the contract keep the promise of another?. The term valuable consideration refers to an act, forbearance or promise having an economic value. In this case, it is clear that only the money paid for the promise of transferring goods was the valuable consideration contemplated by the Excise Act and the Rules. The transaction value was the sale of goods and the consideration was the price or value paid for the goods. The transaction value must be construedfairly clears up the character of any other amount paid at the time of the transaction of sale of goods. Thus, if an amount is paid at the time of the sale transaction for a purpose other than the price of the goods, it cannot form part of the transaction value; also for the reason that such payment is not for the transaction of sale i.e. for the transfer of possession of goods. Any payment made along side such a transaction cannot be treated as consideration for the goods.This takes us to the nature of the ?Dharmada? when given along with the sale price of goods. Dharmada is well known in India to be a donation or an offering made for the purpose of charity as distinct from a commercial transaction. This Court considered the nature and character of Dharmada in Bijli Cotton Mills (supra). That case arose under the Income T ax Act. The assessee used to realise certain amounts on account of Dharmada from his customers on sales of yarn and bales of cotton. The rate was one anna per bundle of ten pounds of yarn and two annas per bale of cotton. The receipts of Dharmada were not credited to the trading account but the assessee maintained a separate account known as the Dharmada account. The authorities under the Act held that the amounts held by the assessee could not be regarded as having been held under trust for charitable purposes.The High Court, however, held that the impugned amounts paid as Dharmada were never the income of the assessee and assessee was merely acting as a conduit for passing on the amounts to the objects of charity. These amounts were never treated as trading receipts or as surcharge on the sale price which was evident from the fact that such realisations were never credited to the trading account nor shown in the profit and loss statement for anyCourt considered the question in great detail and after referring to Professor Wilson?s Glossary and Molesworth?s Dictionary observed that Dharmada means ?an alms or a gift in charity?. This Court observed that though there might be some vagueness as a matter of law, in the word Dharma, there was none in relation to Dharmada or Dharmadaya and such a payment would not be invalid for vagueness or uncertainty. This Court accepted the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunder vs. Additional CIT 93 ITR 27   and observed that?it cannot be disputed that among the trading or commercial community in various parts of the country, a gift or payment for Dharmada is by custom invariably regarded as a gift for charitable. This Court observed that the answer to the question depended on the nature of the obligation created by the customer and approved the finding of the Allahabad High Court to the effect that merely because under the law relating to trust legal ownership over the trust fund and the power to control and dispose of always vest in the trustees, the discretion vested in the trustee to spend the amount over charities will not affect character of thethe above decisions to the case before it, this Court held in Bijli Cotton Mills (supra) that Dharmada amounts cannot be said to have been paid involuntarily by the customers and in any case the compulsory nature of the payments, if there be any, cannot impress the receipts with the character of being trading receipts.We find from the facts of the case before us that the receipts on account of Dharmada were voluntary, earmarked for charity and in fact credited as such. Though the payment as Dharmada has been found to be voluntary, it would make no difference to the true character and nature of the receipts even if there were found to be paid compulsorily because the purchaser, purchased the goods out of their own volition.In this case, the CESTAT decided against the assessee relaying on Panchmukhi (supra). The case of Panchmukhi (supra) was apparently decided not after a discussion on facts and law but because the counsel for the revenue submitted that the matter is covered by the decision in T ata Iron & Steel (supra) and the counsel for the assessee?was not in a position to dispute this legal. The judgment in Panchmukhi (supra) has little precedential value. The point whether Dharmada involved in Panchmukhi (supra) and the surcharge held as price in T ata Iron & Steel (supra) were identical and liable to be included in the transaction value passed sub-silentio. Salmond on Jurisprudence T welfth Edition p.15h states that a decision held is not binding since it was decided?without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority?, therefore, would not be followed. The author also states that precedents sub-silentio and without arguments are of no moment. This is enough reason for not treating the decision in Panchmukhi (supra) as a bindingis, therefore, necessary to take a look at T ata Iron & Steel (supra). That was a case where the customer paid a surcharge on the price of steel. This surcharge was added to generate money for a steel development fund to implement schemes entrusted to the committee by the Central Government. The surcharge went to the committee for use in its various schemes and for the expenditure incurred towards discharge of the committee?s function.The other objects of the fund, were to implement specific schemes entrusted to the Committee by the Central Government and towards the Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund. This Court considered the question whether the addition would fall under the meaning of the term ?other taxes? within the meaning of Section 4 (ii) which excluded the amount of other taxes payable on such goods from value. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that they were compelled by law to collect this charge over and above the price without the right to appropriate it for themselves and with a duty of making it over to a third party and therefore the charges could not be regarded as part of the consideration of the sale price ofCourt held that the charges were clearly added as an element of price and observed, ?thus what was being added was to the price?. Another aspect to be kept in mind is that the ultimate beneficiaries of these amounts are the steel plants themselves.We find that the decision in T ata Iron & Steel (supra) is completely inapposite to the circumstances of the case before us. The reliance placed on T ata Iron & Steel (supra) and Panchmukhi (supra) which was a case of Dharmada, is misplaced. Panchmukhi (supra) cannot be said to be good law.