THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

                      THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.
A
                                          v.
                 COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

                                OCTOBER 24, 2002

B                   [S.N. VARIAVA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]


         Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Sections 2a(ii) and 3; Iron Steel
    (Control) Order, 1956; Clauses 15 and 17B; Notification Nos. (1)-l(S) 71-B
    and SC/16(6)191:
c
          Essential Commodities- Regulation of Price-Iron & Steel (Control)
    Order-":Controller authori:t.ed to fix price- Addition of elements to ex works
    price by Jt. Plant Committee/Steel Priority Committees-Imposition of excise
    duty-Challenge of-Held, such additions could appropriately be classified as
D   elements ofprice and not as compulsory exaction from the purchaser-It can
    not be treated as tax and thus not a permissible deduction from levy of excise
    duty-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Section 4(4}(d)(ii)

          Words and Phrases:

          'Compulsory exaction' in the context of other taxes under Section
E   4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act.

          Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, to regulate the
    price, Government oflndia issued the Iron and Steel (Control) Order and
    also set up Joint Plant Committee and Steel Priority Committee to
    discharge various functions enumerated in the notifications, which
F   included addition of elements to the ex-works price. The Excise
    Department claimed that excise duty was payable even on the component/
    elements added to the ex-works price.

         In appeals filed by the Steel Companies and Revenue, the questions
    which arose were-
G
           (i)    whether the elements added to ex works price as per
                  recommendations of the JPC were admissible deductions
                  under Sections 4(4)d(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act,
                  1944;
           (ii) whether such additions could be considered as price and liable
H                         .              244                               .
                THETA TA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. v. C.C.E.               245
            for excise duty.                                                   A
It was contended for the Steel Companies that elements compulsorily
added to ex-works price by the Iron and Steel Companies are compulsory
exaction and could appropriately be classified as other taxes and liable
for deductions from imposition of excise duty under Section 4(4)(d) (ii)
of the Central Excise Act.                                                     B
       On behalf of the Revenue, it was submitted that under the Central
Excise Act, excise duty is chargeable on the value of the goods and value
is the price on which excise duty could be levied; and that levy is not a
tax, it does not fall within the meaning of the term 'other taxes' and not
liable for deductions from assessable value of the goods.                      C
     Allowing the Revenue's appeals and dismissing the assessees' appeals,
the Court

      HELD: I.I. Excise duty under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944
is chargeable on the value of the goods. The value is the normal price at      D
which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer, where
the buyer is not a related person and the prke is the sole consideration
for sale. From the price at which the assessee selis to the buyer the only
deductions permissible are those under clause 4(4)(d)(ii) i.e. excise, sales
tax and other taxes and in certain cases trade discounts. [255-C-DI            E
      1.2. Even though the Essential Commodities Act empowers
regulation of price, it does not empower imposition of any taxes. The
addition of an element to the ex-works price has no statutory backing or
force. It is not by the Central Government or the State Government or
any local authority. It is a levy by a Committee majority of whose members     F
are representatives of the steel plants. The purpose of creating funds is
for the benefit of these member steel plants. Such a levy, even though it
may be compulsory, can never be a tax. 1256-D-El

       Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills
Ltd., (2001) 132 ELT 523 S.C., referred to.                                    G
      2.1. The Notification makes it clear that what has been added is an
"element of price". Neither JPC nor the SPC could have made any
compulsory exaction from the purchaser. They could only regulate prices
as the powers which they derived are only those which are conferred on         H
    246                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A them by the Notification which established them. Clause 8 of the
    Notification dated 7th April, 1971 only gave a power to determine the
    prices. The amended Clauses (9A) and (98), which were introduced by
    Notification dated 27th December, 1978, also empowered them merely to
    add elements to the ex-works price. In other words, the ex-works price
B   could be increased by adding an element to it. Thus what was being added
    was to the price. Another aspect to be kept in mind is ultimate beneficiaries
    of these amounts are the steel plants themselves. (259-H; 260-A-B-C]

          SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise, (1997) 90 ELT 502, approved.

C        SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, 2000 (119) EL T
    249, held not applicable.

          2.2. Principles on which income is to be determined under the
    Income Tax Act cannot apply when determining value for purposes of
    Excise Duty. Under the Income Tax Act, tax is payable on income which
D   reaches the assessee. On the other hand, Section 4 of the said Act shows
    that excise duty is payable on the price at which goods are ordinarily sold
    to the buyer. (259-D]

          C.J.T. v. Bij/i Cotton Mills, [1979( I SCC 496 and Tollygunge Club Ltd,
    (19771 2 sec 790, distinguished.
E
          Mohan & Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1987) 30 ELT 624, not
    applicable.

          2.3. The principles for computing value for purposes of Sales Tax
    are similar to those of computing value for purposes of Excise Duty. It is
F   these principles which would apply in the instant case. (259-GI

          Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajas than, [ 19781 4 SCC 271 and
    E.J.D. Parry (I) Ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 120001 2
    sec 321, relied on.
G           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION              Civil Appeal No. 508 of
    I998.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.1997 of the Central Excise,
    Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in F.O. No. A-.
    1488/Kol/97 in A. No. E/V-205 of 1996.
H
          THETA TA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. v. C.C.E. [VARIAVA,J.)           247
                                     WITH                                        A
      C.A. Nos. 3530/97, 987-996/98, 2785-2790/2001, 3002-3003/2001,
 3857-3859, 4226, 4227, 4760, 4541-4558, 4559-4630, 4631-4657/2001 and
 749-751 of 2002.

      Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H Desai, Ravinder       B
 Narain, Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar,Ajay Aggarwal, Amit Bhagat, V.
 Lakshmikumaran, A.R. Madhav Rao, Alok Yadav, V. Balachandran,
 Gaurishankar Murthy, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ajay Sharma, B.K. Prasad, Ravinder
 Narain, Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Amit Bhagat,
 Vikram S. Nankani, Ms. Bina Gupta and Ms. Vanita Bhargava for the               C
 appearing parties.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        S.N. VARIAVA, J. Some of these Appeals are filed by the Collector
 of Central Excise. Other A.ppeals are filed by Iron or Steel Manufacturing      D
 Companies. In all these Appeals common questions of law arise. Therefore
 all these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

       Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

        Under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, I 955 "iron     E
  and steel including manufacture of products of iron and steel" are essential
  commodities. Section 3 of this Act enables the Central Government to control
  production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. One of the
. manners of control could be by regulating price at which the essential
  commodities are to be bought or sold.
                                                                                 F
      Pursuant to the powers given under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 the Government of India issued the Iron and Steel
(Control) Order, I 956. Clauses 15 and 17 (b) of the said Order read as
follows:

        "15. Power to fix price. - (I) The Controller may from time to time      G
        by notification in the Gazette of India, fix the maximum prices at
        which any iron or steel may be sold (a) by a producer, (b) by a
        stockholder including a controlled stockholder and (c) by any other
        person or class of persons. Such price or prices may differ for iron
        and steel obtaining from different sources and may include allowances
        for contribution to and payment from any Equalisation Fund               H
    248                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         established by the Controller for equalising fr!;!ight, the concession
          rates payable to each producer or class of producers under agreements
          entered into by the Controller with the producers from time to time
          and any other disadvantages. The Controller may also, by a general
          or special order in writing, ·require any person or class of person
          enumerated above to pay such amount on account of allowances for
B         contribution to any Equalisation Fund, within such period and in such
          manner as the Controller may direct in this behalf:

              Provided that the Controller may, with the approval of the Central
          Government, fix maximum prices for sale of iron or steel (a) by a
          producer, (b) by a stockholder including a Controller Stockholder
c         and (c) by any other person or class of persons for export outside
          India and such prices may be different from the maximum selling
          prices fixed for sale for other purposes.

              Provided further that the Controller may, with the approval of the
          Central Government, fix maximum controller prices for sale of iron
D
          or steel by the Registered Producers and Controlled Stockholders to
          the manufacturers of engineering goods for fabricating products for
          export, at prices lower than the maximum selling prices fixed for sale
          for other purposes.

E             (2) For the purpose of applying the prices notified under sub-
          clause (l) the Controller may himself classify any iron and steel and
          may, if no appropriate price has been so notified, fix such price as he
          considers appropriate:

              Provided th~t where ~ny stocks are required by a special order of
F         the Controller tu be moved from one place to another or are to be
          sold at a place which is not connected with any railhead, the Controller
          may direct that the maximum prices fixed under sub-clause (I) or (2),
          shall not apply to such stocks and may, in respect of such stocks,
          specify the maximum prices at which the iron or steel may be sold.

G             (3) No producer or stockholder or other person shall sell or offer
          to sell, and no person shall acquire, any iron or steel at a price
          exceeding the maximum prices fixed under sub-clause (I) or (2).

          17-B. Power of Central Government to set up committees, etc. -
          (I) For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this order,
H         with respect to any category of iron or steel, whether such category
         THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO.LTD. v. C.C.E. [VARIAVA, .I]             249
       is subject to or exempt from the operation of all or any such provisions,   A
       the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
       set up, from time to time, such committees, bodies or authorities as
       it may consider necessary.

           (2) The committee, body or authority set up under sub-clause (I)
       shall carry out such functions as may be specified in the notification      B
       under which such committee, body or authority is set up."

Thus it is to be seen that what could be fixed is the price. The Committees
which were to be set up were only to carry out such functions as would be
specified in the Notification under which they are set up.
                                                                                   c
      By a N.:itification bearing no. SC(l)-1(5)/71-B dated 7th April, 1971,
a Joint Plant Committee (JPA) and a Steel Priority Committee (SPC) were set
up. Clause 8 of this Notification reads as follows:

       "(8) The Committee may determine, announce and list prices (base
       prices as well as extras) from time to time of all categories of iron or    D
       steel not subject to price control under clause 15 of the Iron and Steel
       (Control) Order, 1956. The prices so determined will be ex-works
       prices. The Controller shall add a fixed element of equalised freight
       to the ex-works prices announced from time to time in order to ensure
       that buyers of steel all over the country pay the same railway freight      E
       irrespective of the distance from the source of supply. The Committee
       may take such measures as it considers necessary or desirable to
       ensure that buyers of iron or steel all over the country pay the same
       price."

      It must be mentioned that the Committees constituted under the               F
Notification consisted of a Chairman, i.e. the Iron and Steel Controller, one
representative of each of the main Steel Plants i.e. one from TISCO, one
from the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, one from the Hindustan
Steel Limited, Raurkela, one from the Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilai, one
from the Hindustan Steel Limited, Durgapur and a representative of the
Railways. Thus the majority of members in these Committees were from the           G
Iron and Steel Companies who are before this Court.

      By another Notification dated 27th December, 1998 the earlier
Notification was amended. Sub-clauses (9A) and (9B) were added. These
read as follows:
                                                                                   H
    250                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           "(9A). The Committee may add an element to the ex-works prices
            determined under sub-clause (8) for constituting a fund for
          . modernisation, research and development with the object of ensuring
            the production of iron and steel in the desired categories and grades
            by the main steel plants. In the matter of operation of this fund, the
            Committee shall perform its functions in accordance with and subject
B           to, such regulations or directions as may be issued by the Central
            Government, from time to time.

            (98). The Committee may also add any other element to the ex-
            works prices determined under sub-clause (8) to enable it to discharge
            its functions and to implement specific scheme entrusted to it by the
c         . Central Government."

          At a meeting held by JPC on 16th January, 1992 note was taken of a
    Notification No. SC/16(6)/91. It was resolved that the members steel plants
    would add to their ex-works prices certain elements. The relevant Clause of
D   the Notification reads as follows:

           "(4) The Committee may from time to time require the member steel
           plants to add the elements listed below to their ex-works prices of all
           or any of the categories of iron and steel and to remit the same to the
           Committee within such periods as may be specified:
E          (i)   an element of price towards the Steel Development Fund for
                 financing schemes, projects ana other capital expenditures for
                 modernisation, research and development, .rehabilitation,
                 diversification, renewals and replacement, balancing, additions
                 to capacity, major new investments or any other programme for
F                improving the quantum of technology or efficiency of production
                 of Iron and Steel or their quality.
                 Explanation: The Committee shall perform its functions relating
                 to the Steel Development Fund in accordance with and subject
                 to such orders as directions or may be issued by the Central
                 Government in this behalf from time to time.
G
           (ii) an element of price for enabling the Committee to discharge its
                functions and to implement specific schemes entrusted to it by
                the Central Government ; ·
           (iii) An element of price towards the Engineering Goods Export
H                Assistance Fund." (emphasis supplied)
         THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO.LTD. v C.C.E. (VARIAVA, J.]              251

      Pursuant to this Notification these Companies started adding that element A
to their ex-works price. The Excise Department claims that excise is payable
even on this component.

       The questions which therefore arise are (i) whether the elements required
to be added by the members steel plants, as per the decision of the JPC, are
admissible deductions under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and         B
Salt Act, I 944 (hereinafter called the said Act) i.e. whether they fall within
the definition of the term "other taxes" and (ii) whether such addition, which
is a compulsory impost, can be considered and be price on which excise duty
is payable by the parties.

       Mr. Desai has submitted that the Iron or Steel Companies have to            C
compulsory add this element to the ex-works price. He submitted that this
therefore is a compulsory exaction. He relied upon the case of Commissioner
of C. Ex., Meerut v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd, reported in (2001)
(132) EL T 523 (S.C.). In this case, in the State of Uttar Pradesh there was
an Act called the Uttar Pradesh Shera Niyantaran Adhiniyam, "1964. This Act        D
regulated storage, gradation, price, supply and distribution, in Uttar Pradesh,
of molasses produced by the sugar factories. Section 8(4) of the Act provided
that sugar factories would be liable to pay to the State Government
administrative charges as may from time to time be notified. These
administrative charges were based on the quantity of molasses sold and
supplied by the sugar factories. Section 5 of the Act enabled the factories to     E
recover these charges from the person to whom the molasses were sold. The
question before the Court was whether this compulsory exaction fell within
the term "other taxes" in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. This
Court held as follows:

       "7. Under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act what is to be F
       excluded from the assessable value is the amount of duty of excise,
       sales tax and "other taxes". Taxes, as such, are not defined in the
       Central Excise Act. If the expression "tax" is to be understood in the
       absence of any definition, it would certainly cover any levy. In D. G.
       Chose & Co. (Agents) Pvt. ltd. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (1980] G
       2 SCC 4 IO, broad meaning had been given to the expression "tax".
       In such an event, administrative charges would be covered under
       Section 4(4.J(d)(ii) as "other taxes" because it is a compulsory exaction
       made under an enactment and, therefore, a duty or impost and such
       impost must be held to be in the nature of a 'tax' covered by the H
    252                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          aforesaid provisions."

    Strongly relying on these observations, Mr. Desai submitted that in this case
    also there is a compulsory exaction and therefore such compulsory exaction
    is in the nature of "tax" and is covered by the words "other taxes" in Section
    4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act
B
          Mr. Desai also drew the attention of this Court to the case of !spat
    Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in [2000] 4 SCC 137. In this case
    the Petitioner who was also a manufacturer of iron and steel claimed that
    they were entitled to financial assistance from the Steel Development Fund.
    This Court set out all the relevant provisions and then held as follows:
c
               "11. As seen above, SDF was created by notification issued under
           clause 17-B of the Control Order. Main steel plants form the primary
           units of the Joint Plant Committee. It were only the members steel
           plants or the main steel plants who were subjected to add an element
           of their ex-works price and remit the same towards SDF. SAIL and
D          TISCO were the member steel plants. SAIL was having four plants
           at Bhilai, Bokaro, Durgapur and Rourkela. Indian Iron and Steel
           Company Ltd. subsequently got merged with SAIL. By notification
           dated 16-1-1992 the Central Government withdrew the price
           restrictions under the Control Order and thereafter by notification
E          dated 21-4-1994 contributions by the member steel producers towards
           SDF was also discontinued. It is the Central Government, which
           exercises control over SDF though there is no backing of any statutory
           provision for creation of SDF. The primary object of SDF was to
           enable the main steel producers for modernization, research and
           development with the object of ensuring the production of iron and
F          steel in the desired categories and grades by the main steel plants.
           Other steel producers who were known as secondary producers were
           not members of the Joint Plant Committee. They were not subjected
           to add an clement of ex-works price of steel but could add any element
           of their choice and not to make remittance of the same to SDF. It
G          does not stand to reason as to how these secondary producers are
           entitled to claim any amount from the corpus of SDF or to get some
           directions issued respecting the use of SDF. The petitioner started
           production only in April 1998 when four years prior to that remittance
           to SDF had been discontinued. It is not disputed that the petitioner
           was not a member of the Joint Plant Committee and did not remit any
H          amount towards the corpus of SDF. The question is if in these
 THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. v.C.C.E. [VARIAVA, J.]            253
circumstances the petitioner could advance a claim or exercise a right    A
on SDF in any manner.

     12. It were the members of the Joint Plant Committee who were
made bound to add an element of ex-works price and. to remit that
amount foi the constitution of SDF. It has been stated by the first
respondent, Union of India, through the affidavit filed by the fourth     B
respondent, Joint Plant Committee, that funds out of SDF were
disbursed to the member steel plants by the SDF Managing Committee
as per directions issued by the Central Government from time to
time. It is then submitted that since early 1990s there has been a
general recession in the steel industry. SAIL had approached the          C
Central Government for its financial and business restructuring. SAIL
had taken over Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., a sick company
in the year I 978. Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of SAIL. The proposal given by SAIL to the Central
Government contained various components and measures including
waiver of loans from SDF made over to member steel plants which           D
were under SAIL. It will be noticed that the amount of SDF was not
in fact remitted to the Central Government but was shown as credit
to the Central Government in the books of SAIL and its member steel
plants. This proposal of SAIL, it would appear, has since been accepted
by the Central Government by its letter dated I 8-2-2000 which we         E
have reproduced above.

     13. While there was price control under the Control Order during
the period 1978-94 when the remittance to SDF was made by the
main steel producers, the petitioner was nowhere in the picture and
was not subjected to any price control like the main steel producers. F
The petitioner and other steel producers were free to produce and sell
the iron and steel products in the market on the prevailing prices. It
has been pointed that the price fixed by the petitioner of its products
was much higher than the control price which included elements of
SDF. While the collection and remittance to SDF has been discontinued
w.e.f. April 1994, the petitioner made its claim for the first time in G
1999 which would appear to be rather incongruous. It is submitted
that the claim made by the· petitioner is not bona fide and the writ
petition has been filed with ulterior motives, which are not difficult
to fathom. SAIL had stressed immediate need for restructuring and
modernizing all the main steel plants. Due to recession, SAIL has
been passing through a severe financial position and has to suffer a H
    ' 254                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            loss of Rs. 1574 crores in 1998-99. It has further to suffer the burden
             of interefi_t to the tune of Rs. 2017 crores per annum for modernization.
             In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not have any right
             to claim any relief in the writ petition pertaining to utilization of
             SDF. It is quite apparent that from the very nature of the creation of
             SDF, the manner of remittance to SDF and purpose of its utilization,
B            it is a fund created ultimately for the utilization by the member stee~
            •producers only."

     Mr Desai submitted that this case shows that what was being added was an
     element to the ex-works price and that the exaction was a compulsory exaction.
C    He submitted that the manufacturers had no option but to add this element
     to the .ex-works price and to then remit that amount to JPC and the SPC. He
     submitted that these compulsory exactions were clearly having the nature of
     a tax.

           In order to understand the submission, the provisions of Section 4 'of
D    the said Act need to be look at. The relevant provisions of Section 4 read as
     follows:
                                                                                 ;;:

            "4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty
            of excise. (I) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable
            on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value shiil·\;"',,.
E           subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be - · '
            (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such
                goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course
                of wholesale trade fo( delivery at the time and place of removal,
                where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole
F               consideration for the sale:
                 xxx          xxx            xxx
                  xxx         xxx            xxx
            (4) For the purposes of this section,-
G                (a) "assessee" means the person who is liable to pay the duty of
                     excise under this Act and includes his agent;

                        xxx            xxx            xxx

                        xxx            xxx            xxx
H
         THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO.LTD. v.C.C.E. [VARIAVA, J.]             255
            (d) "value" in relation to any excisable goods,-                      A
                 xxx             xxx            xxx

                xxx              xxx             xxx

            (ii) does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax
                 and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject      B
                 to. such rules as may be made, the trade discount (such
                 discount not being refundable on any account whatsoever)
                 allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the
                 wholesale. trade at the time of removal in respect of such
                 goods sold or contracted for sale;"                              C
It is thus to be seen that under the said Act excise duty is chargeable on the
value of the goods. The value is the normal price i.e. the price at which such.
goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer, where the buyer is not
a related person and the price is the sole consideration for sale. From the
price at which the assessee sells to the buyer the only deductions permissible D
are those under sub-clause 4(d)(ii) i.e. excise, sales tax and other taxes and
in certain cases trade discounts. It is nobody's case that the extra element is
an excise or a sales tax or a trade discount. The only question is whether it
would fall within the meaning of the term "other taxes".

      In Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd 's case, to give a broad meaning to       E
the term "tax", reliance was placed upon the case in D.G. Gose and Co. v.
State of Kera/a which is reported in (1980] 2 SCC 410. In D.G. Gose's case
the question was regarding the validity of tax imposed by the Kerala State on
buildings by virtue of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The validity of this
Act was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that this was the tax on the        F
capital value and assessee of an individual or a Company and therefore fell
within the scope of Entry 86 of List I of the VII Schedule of the Con&titution
and not under Entry 49 of List 2. On this basis it was urged that the State did
not have the statutory authority to impose such a tax. In dealing with these
questions this Court held as follows:
                                                                                  G
       "5. The word 'tax' in its widest sense includes all money raised by
       taxation. It therefore includes taxes levied by the Central and the
       State legislatures, and also those known as 'rates", or other charges,
       levied by local authorities under statutory powers. "taxation" has
       therefore been defined in clause (28) of Article 366 of the Constitution
       to include "the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or        H
    256                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          local or special'', and it has been directed that "tax" shall be "construed
           accordingly"."

    Thus it is to be seen that even though the term "tax" has been given a wide
    interpretation to include all monies raised, the levy still has to be by the
    Central or State legislatures or by some statutory authority. In Kisan Sahkari
B   Chinni Mills Ltd. 's case the imposition was under a statute enacted by the
    State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus the levy was by the State. It was thus held that
    that levy fell within the definition of the term "other taxes".

          In the present case, it has already been held by this Court in !spat
    Industries' case that there is no ba'ckirig of any statutory provision for the
C   creation of these funds. Further it has already been held, and in our view
    correctly, that these main steel plants were the only member steel plants. The
    levy was only on them and the fund was created for the utilization by these
    member steel plants only. Also to be noted that even though the Essential
    Commodities Act empowers regulation of price, it does not empower
D   imposition of any taxes. The addition of an element to the ex-works price has
    no statutory backing$ force. It is not by the Central Government or the State
    Government or any local authority. It is a levy by a Committee majority of
    whose rpembers are representatives of the steel plants. The purpose of creating
    fun~s is for the benefit of these member steel plants. Such a levy, even
    though, it may be compulsory can never be "tax".
E
           Mr. Desai then submitted that what was being added was an element
    to the ex-works price. He submitted that this element cannot be considered
    to be price on which excise duty has to be paid. It was pointed out to us that,
    on this question, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
F   Delhi (CEGA T, Delhi) had, in the case of SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise
    reported in I 997 (90) EL T 502, held that as the manufacturers were compelled
    by law to collect this charge over and above the price without right to
    appropriate it for themselves and with duty of making it over a third party
    i.e. the JPC, the charges could not be regarded as part of the consideration
    for the sale price of the goods. It was held that these charges could not be
G   added for determining the assessable value.

          It was pointed out that another matter appeared before the Calcutta
    branch of CEGAT. The earlier Judgment ofCEGATwas shown to the Calcutta
    branch. The Calcutta branch in the case of SAIL and Anr. v. Collector of
    Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, reported in 1998 (24) RL T 394 (CEGA T)
H   differed with the earlier Judgment and held that this addition was nothing but
         THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO.LTD. v. C.C.E. [VARIAVA,J.]             257

an element of price and that therefore the same had to be included in A
determining the assessable value for payment of excise duty.

      In view of these conflicting decisions, the question was referred to a
larger Bench of CEGAT. In the case of SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bhubaneshwar, reported in (2000) (119) EL T 249, the larger Bench.held that
the normal price was a price at which the goods were ordinarily sold by the B
assessee to the buyer. It was held that if any part of the amount paid by the
buyer· to the assessee was not to be appropriated by the assessee then
consequently that part cannot be termed as value for the goods. In coming to
this conclusion the larger Bench had relied on Judgments of this Court which
are set out hereinafter.                                                        c
       In the case of CJ T. v. Tollygunge Club Ltd., reported in [ 1977] 2 SCC
790, the question was whether a surcharge collected by the assessee Club
from all race goers but which had been eannarked for charity could be
deemed to be an income of the assessee and therefore includible in the
taxable income of the assessee. It was held by this Court that income tax was D
a tax on income. It was held that "income" is what reaches the assessee and
that it is that income which is intended to be charged to tax under the Income
Tax Act. It was held that every receipt by the assessee is not necessarily
income in his hands. It was held that the surcharge collected by the assessee
was for the purposes of being paid over to local charities. It was held that this E
surcharge was clearly impressed with an obligation in the nature of trust for
being applied for the benefit of charities. It was held that this surcharge was
diverted before it reached the hands of the assessee and did not become part
of the income of the assessee. It was held that such a surcharge would
therefore not be regarded as income assessable to tax.

       In the case of C./. T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills, reported in [ 1979] 1. SCC
496, the question was whether certain amounts realized by the assessee on
account of"Dharmada" (Charity) in addition to the price from his customers
could be stated to be income in the hands of the assessee which were assessable
to income tax. It was held by this Court that though amount of "Dhannada" G
was undoubtedly a payment which the customers were required to pay in
addition to the price of the goods purchased from the assessee. It was held
that the purchase ofthe goods was only an occasion and not the consideration
for the "Dharmada" amount. It was accepted that without payment of the
"Dharmada" amount the customer would not be able to purchase the goods
from the assessee. It was held that this did not make the payment involuntary H

   '
    258                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A because the purchaser purchased the goods of his own volition. It was held
    that the amount of "Dharmada" was being collected for purposes of giving
    to charities and were held by the assessee under an obligation to spend them
    for charitable purposes. It was held that these therefore did not form income
    of the assessee. It was held that these amounts were not part of the price of
a   the goods but were payments for specific purpose of being spent on charitable
    purposes.

                                            '
           In the case of Mohan & Co. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in
    1987 (30) EL T 624, relying upon the above mentioned two decisions of this
    Court CEGAT, Delhi held that "Dharmada" (charity) receipts were not
C   includable in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
    Mr. Desai submitted that an SLP filed .against this· order was summarily
    rejected by this Court.

         Mr. Desai submitted that all the above authorities including the larger
  Bench decision of CEGAT and the decision of CEGAT in Mohan & Co.'s
D case· clearly show that when there is a compulsory impost or exaction, the
  assessee has to collect but the assessee cannot retain for himself and he has
  to pass on the same, then such a compulsory exaction cannot be included in
  the value for purposes of assessing excise duty. He submitted that such ii:nposts
  cannot be deemed to be price. Mr. Desai submitted that the minutes of the
E JPC dated 16th January, 1992 as well as the Notification of the same date,
  make it clear that what was being added/levied was an element to the ex-
  works price. He submitted that the price remained the ex-works price. He
  submitted that the Companies sold to the customers at the ex-works price. He
  submitted that the additional amount was merely collected by the Companies
  for and on behalf of JPC and SPC. He submitted that they did not retain this
F amount. He submitted that this element could not be considered to be price.
        On the other hand, Mr. Rohtagi submitted thatthe principles under the
  Income Tax Act cannot be made applicable to the Central Excise Act. He
  submitted that under the Income Tax Act what is taxable is the actual income
G received by the assessee for his own benefit. He submitted, with reference to
  Section 4 of the said Act, tha.t under the Central Excise Act excise duty is
  chargeable on the value of the goods. He submitted that the value is the price
  at which the goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to the buyer. He
  submitted that therefore the price which the buyer pays is the price on which
  excise duty is leviable. He submitted that from the price that the buyer pays,
H the only deductions can be those set out in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the said Act.
         THE TATA IRON & STEEL C0. LTD. v. C.C.E. [VARIAVA, J.)         259
He submitted that this levy is not a "tax" and does not fall within the meaning A
of the term "other taxes". He submitted that this element cannot be deducted
from the assessable value of the goods.

       Mr. Rohtagi further points out that the element which has been added
is an "element of price". He relied upon the Notification dated 16th January,
1992 (which has been reproduced hereinabove) and points out Clauses 4(i), B
4(ii) and 4(iii) which clearly show that what has been added is an element
of price. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that this element could only have been added
as price because the JPC and SPC are established by virtue of the Iron and
Steel (Control) Order. He submitted that the Iron and Steel (Control) Order
is based on the Essential Commodities Act and under that Act there was no C
power to make any levy or impose any tax on a purchaser. He submitted that
the addition being an element of price it has to be included in the assessable
value for purposes of excise duty.

       We have heard the parties. In our view, Mr. Rohtagi is right. Principles
on which "income" is to be determined under the Income Tax Act cannot D
apply. when determining "value" for purposes of Excise Duty. Under the
Income Tax Act, tax is payable on income which reaches the assessee. On the
other hand, Section 4 of the said Act shows that excise is payable on the price
at which goods are ordinarily sold to the buyer. Thus the principles on which
Bijli Cottons Mills' case and Tollygunge Club's case were decided would not
be appropriate and would not apply for deciding "value" for the purposes of E
the said Act. In our view the decision of CEGAT in Mohan & Co.'s case
cannot be said to be good law.

       We are supported in our view by the decision in the case of Hindustan
Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan, reported in [1978] 4 SCC 271. In this case p
the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay Sales Tax on the
amount of railway freight collected by them from the purchaser. It wa~ held
that the assessee was bound to pay Sales Tax on such amounts. In the case
of E.l.D. Parry(/) Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner o/Commerc/a/ Taxes, reported
in [2000] 2 sec 321 it was held that the purchase price is the total amount
of consideration for the purchase of goods. It was held that this would include G
 price and also other amounts payable by the purchaser. These authorities are
under the Sales Tax Act. The principles for computing value for purposes of
 Sales Tax are similar to those of computing value for purposes of Excise
                                    '
 Duty. It is these principles which would  apply.

      In any event, a plain reading of the Notification makes it clear that H
      260                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

  A what has been added is an "element of price". Neither JPC nor the SPC could
      have made any compulsory exaction from the purchaser. They could only
      regulate prices as the powers which they derived ar,e only those which are
      conferred on them by the Notification which established them. Clause 8 of
      the Notification dated 7th April, 1971 only gave a power to determine the
      prices. The amended Clauses (9A) and (98), which were introduced by
  B   Notification dated 27th December, 1978, also empowered them merely to
      add elements to the ex-works price. In other words the ex-works price could
      be increased by adding an element to it. Thus what was being added was to
      the price.'Another aspect to be kept in mind is ultimate beneficiaries of these
      amounts are the steel plants themselves.
  c          In our view therefore the view expressed by the larger Bench of CEGAT,
       Delhi cannot be said to be the correct view. In our view, the decision of
       CEGAT, Calcutta in SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997
       (90) EL T 502 is correct.

  D          In this view of the matter, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.
       The Appeals filed by the Companies against the Judgment, in the case of
       SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (90) EL T 502 are
       dismissed.

             We are told that in some of the matters the question of a proper
. E calculation of the duty also arises. We are told that CEGAT did not undertake
       the exercise of proper calculation as they held in favour of the assessee. In
       those cases where a question of re-calculation arises, the matters will
       necessarily stand referred back to CEGA T for determination of the exact
       amounts in accordance with law. Parties to jointly intimate the Office, a list
  F    of such matters. In case of dispute liberty to apply.

             With these directions the Appeals stand disposed of. There will be no
       order as to costs.

       S.K.S.                                                      Appeals allowed.