AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.K. Ranka, J.—These four sales tax revision petitions by the petitioner-assessee under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, ''RST Act, 1994'') are directed against the order of the Tax Board and relate to the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
Since the facts and the controversy involved in all these revision petitions being similar, the same are being decided by this common order.
The brief facts are that the petitioner-assessee is manufacturing cylinders for the purpose of LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) and its 100% supply is for three companies owned by the Government of India namely; M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The aforesaid three companies placed purchase order of 14.2 KG LPG Cylinders to the petitioner-assessee. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited placed purchase order for purchase of 14.2 KG Cylinders @ Rs. 682/- per cylinder and it was stated that the pricing formula is under review by the Government and the final prices applicable after 01/07/1999 will be only as per approval of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases (for short "MOP and NG"). Similar purchase order was placed by the other two companies namely; M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. A letter came to be issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 31/10/2000 to the petitioner-assessee conveying that the Industry has undertaken a study to review the existing cylinder price with the assistance of M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers. Accordingly, the price of 14.2 Kg LPG Cylinder was maintained provisionally with effect from 01/07/1999 at Rs. 645/- per 14.2 Kg cylinder and that M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers have already submitted a draft report to Industry on the price revision and accordingly it was conveyed that pending finalization of the report and the short time available to recover the cost due to the proposed cylinder tender, Industry has decided to revise the provisional price of 14.2 KG cylinders to Rs. 645/- with effect from 01/07/1999 and accordingly will be recovering the differential amounts from the subsequent bills of the petitioner-assessee and final adjustment would be made later on after finalization of the cylinder price and it was further conveyed that all supplies with effect from 01/11/2000 shall have the provisional basic price of Rs. 645/- per cylinder.
It was contention of the petitioner-assessee that it paid sales tax on the price of Rs. 682/- per cylinder on the basis of the purchase order placed by the oil Companies to it and such tax was deposited in the Government account and on account of reduction in the purchase value from Rs. 682/-to Rs. 645/- per cylinder, the petitioner-assessee was entitled to claim rebate/refund of sales tax in the years aforesaid. It was claimed by the petitioner-assessee that the purchase order, initially placed at Rs. 682/-, was provisional and the petitioner-assessee paid due tax and later on by the letter dated 31/10/2000 the rate was revised and thus, the petitioner-assessee had no option except to request for reduction of the tax already paid as otherwise it has not only borne sales tax but has also suffered loss of Rs. 37/- per cylinder and accordingly a revised Return was filed to claim reduction on account of reduction in sale price. However, the Assessing Officer (for short, ''AO'') did not allow the claim of the petitioner-assessee by observing that there is no provision under the Act for reducing the amount or claiming tax rebate once the amount having been deposited by the petitioner-assessee in the Government treasury. It was further contended that there was agreement/arrangement by the petitioner-assessee with the aforesaid three Companies and in so far as the sales tax is concerned, it had no concern or connection with the same agreement and accordingly rejected claim of the petitioner-assessee.
The petitioner-assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, ''DC(A)''), who, after analyzing the evidence placed on record, allowed appeal of the petitioner-assessee by holding that there was a rate difference and the same was not final, therefore, being a reduction, the claim of the petitioner-assessee was just and proper.
Dissatisfied with the relief having been granted by the DC(A), the respondent-Revenue preferred four appeals, as aforesaid, before the Tax Board. The Tax Board, after analyzing the material on record, allowed appeal of the respondent-Revenue by holding that it could not have been said to be a rate difference and as the agreement/arrangement, if any, was in between) the petitioner-assessee and the Oil Companies, as aforesaid, the Sales Tax Department has no concern or connection with the internal arrangement and that the reduction of tax on facts is not applicable.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner-assessee contended that the definition of ''sale'' is quite clear under the Act and the ''sale price'' would mean the amount paid or payable to a dealer for the sale less any sum allowed by way of any kind of discount or rebate according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade. He also laid stress on the definition of ''turnover'' as given under the Act to mean the amount received or receivable and laid stress on the word ''payable'' and ''receivable'' and contended that ''payable'' and ''receivable'' would mean the actual amount as actually paid by the purchaser and having been received by the assessee on the transaction. He contended that there was no option with the assessee except to adhere to the directives of the Oil Companies as they voluntarily reduced the price later on and therefore, the assessee had no option except to file a revised return to claim refund of the excess tax which was on account of revision of price from Rs. 682/- to Rs. 645/- per cylinder and he contended that the petitioner was well within its right to claim refund of tax as tax was paid in excess of what was intended under the Act. He also in the alternative contended that it could be a discount and the definition of sale price prescribes that a discount or rebate allowed is required to be reduced and contended that it was a discounted value at Rs. 645/- on which the assessee received the final amount. He further contended that similar position arose under the Central Excise Act and the matter travelled upto the Hon''ble Apex Court after having been allowed by the High Court and even the Supreme Court dismissed appeal of the Revenue. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Motor Industries Co.: 1983 (53) STC 48 ; The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (1987) 65 STC 41 ; Bisra Stone Lime Co. Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Others, (1979) 48 CLT 13 : (1979) 44 STC 418 ; Bojaraj Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ; Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ceat Tyres of India, (1988) 68 STC 53 ; Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Tata Oil Mills Ltd., (1987) 67 STC 389 ; Commercial Taxes Officer v. Solkit Cosmetics: (2009) 25 Tax Update 65; Assistant Commissioner v. M/s. Vilas Udhyog: (2007) 18 Tax Update 184; State of Rajasthan and anr. v. Rajasthan Chemist Association: 2006 (15) Tax Update 261 and judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Ltd. : SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 64/2009, decided on 20/03/2013.
On the contrary, ld. counsel for the respondent-Revenue vehemently contended that on perusal of the letter, by which the amount was reduced to Rs. 645/-, it also shows that it is even provisional and he contended that there is no provision under the Act to keep on revising the Returns once the assessee had voluntarily paid due tax. He further contended that the Tax Board, after elaborate discussion, has come to right conclusion. He further contended that it was in between the assessee and the Oil Companies and the Revenue was not at all in the picture in between the agreements and he contended that it was integral/internal arrangement and if the assessee had any grievance of reduction of the taxes, then it could have claimed the same from the Oil Companies rather than claiming refund. He also relied upon Section 2(39) under the RST Act, 1994 which gives definition of ''sale price'' and contended that the word used is ''the goods at the time or before the delivery thereof and laid stress that once the delivery was given, the voluntary effect by the petitioner himself proved that he was aware of the said rate being final. He contended that it cannot be said to be a case of discount at all as it is neither in the nature of discount nor rebate to the purchaser i.e. the Oil Companies rather the Oil Companies had reduced the price prevailing in the market and thus the alternative submission of discount is wholly unsustainable. He also relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of MRF Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, (1999) 84 ECR 66 : (1997) 92 ELT 309 : (1997) 5 SCC 104 .
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record including the judgments relied upon, on behalf of both the sides.
In my view, the view expressed by the Tax Board appears to be well justified, needs no interference and is to be sustained. It may be true that as per letter dt. 04/05/2000, provisional price of Rs. 682/- was directed to be paid to the assessee by the Oil Companies and it may be observed that prior to the letter, by which the purchase order was placed on 04/05/2000, the rate was agreed upon by and between the assessee and the Oil Companies, as aforesaid and in this purchase order, it was also stated that the assessee had to supply 73380 number of LPG cylinders by 31st August, 2000. It may be observed that out of the two assessment years, while for the assessment year 1999-2000, the financial year ended on 31/03/2000 whereas the purchase order placed by the assessee is dt. 04/05/2000. So, by that date, the financial year for the assessment year 1999-2000 had already ended. It is true that the assessee also placed on record a subsequent letter, which has been referred to herein above dt. 31/10/2000 by which the amount was reduced on the basis of price revision, after the Oil Companies having received the draft report from M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers. Therefore, in my view, there ought to have been some more material placed on record by the assessee prior to the date i.e. 01/07/1999 on which the rate was provisionally fixed at Rs. 682/-. It would be appropriate to quote the letter dt. 04/05/2000 of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited placing purchase order to the petitioner-assessee, which reads ad-infra:--
"Dated 4/5/2000
UNIVERSAL CYLINDERS LTD. 501, 508, VISHAL BHAVAN 95, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI -110019.
Dear Sirs,
Sub: Purchase order for supply of 14.2 Kg LPG CYLINDERS
We are pleased to place this purchase order on you for supply of 14.2. Kg LPG cylinders as follows.
1) This order is for supply of 73380 Nos. 14.2 Kg LPG cylinders. You have to supply the quantity by 31.08.2000 to our regions as detailed below. Further, in order to avoid accumulation of unnecessary inventories, you must first obtain plant-wise allocation from the regions before manufacturing and supplying the cylinders.
NOTHERN REGION: 73380 EASTERN REGION: 0 WESTERN REGION: 0 SOUTHERN REGION: 0 ASSAM OIL DIVISION: 0
2) For the purpose of pre-escalation quantity, pruning and LD, if any applicable, the supply schedule will be 30%, 30%, 20% and 20% of the order quantity during May 2000, June 2000, July 2000 and August 2000 respectively. The date of despatch/excise gate-pass shall be taken as date of supply.
3) You can charge a provisional price of Rs. 682.00 for 14.2 Kg cylinders. Pricing formula is under review by the Government and the final prices applicable after 01.07.99 will be only as per approval of MOP and NG.
4) In case you choose transportation by road, the responsibility of transportation and property in goods shall lie with the seller and the payment shall be released on receipt of material at plant/site and only the least freight applicable shall be payable limited to Notional Rail Freight.
5) This order is subject to the enclosed General conditions and the purchase agreement for 2000-2001. Receipt of this PO may please be acknowledged. Commencement of supply against this PO shall be taken as the acceptance of the same.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully, For INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., Sd/- Dy. General Manager (LPG-OPS)"
On perusal of the above, it is also clear that it is a purchase agreement for the year 2000-2001 and purchase order, if any of the earlier year, has not been placed on record.
Be that as it may, in my view, it was in between the assessee and the Oil Companies and there was an integral arrangement in between the assessee vis-�-vis the Oil Companies and the assessee, on his own, voluntarily paid tax as it claims to have been paid price @ Rs. 682/- per cylinder. It may also be observed that the assessee has placed on record a letter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited bearing No. LPG/EQPT/2000/3084 dt. 29/03/2000 (Ann.4-C) which is a purchase order for purchasing 29256 number of cylinders where the provisional price has been fixed at Rs. 700.58 per cylinder. It would be appropriate to quote the letter dt. 31/10/2000 (Ann.4-D) issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the petitioner-assessee intimating that all supplies w.e.f. 01/11/2000 shall have the provisional basic price of Rs. 645/- per cylinder, which reads
"Ref: LPG.O/M/2 Date: 31/10/2000
To,
ALL LPG Cylinder Manufacturers
Dear Sirs,
Sub: PROVISIONAL PRICE OF LPG CYLINDERS As you are aware Industry has undertaken a study to review the existing cylinder pricing with the assistance of M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers. Accordingly, the price of 14.2 Kg LPG Cylinder was maintained provisional with effect from 01/07/1999. M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers have already submitted a draft report to Industry on the price revision. Pending finalisation of the report and the short time available to recover the cost due to the proposed cylinder tender, Industry has decided to revise the provisional basic price of 14.2 Kg cylinders to Rs. 645/-with effect from 01/07/1999. Accordingly, we will be recovering the differential amounts from your bills. Final adjustments would be made later on after finalization of the cylinder price.
Please note that al supplies with effect from 01/11/2000 shall have the provisional basic price of Rs. 645/- per cylinder.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sd/- (B.L Bansal) DGM (LPG-Ops)"
On perusal of the same, it specifies that even the rate of 645/-, which has been reduced on the basis of assistance of M/s. Price Water House Coopers, is only the "provisional basic price". It would be appropriate to have a look to the definition of the ''sale price'' and ''turnover'' as given under the CST and RST Act.
Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 defines ''sale price'' as under:--
"2(h) "sale price" means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged:
[Provided that in the case of a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, the sale price of such goods shall be determined in the prescribed manner by making such deduction from the total consideration for the works contract as may be prescribed and such price shall be deemed to be the sale price for the purpose of this clause;]"
14.1 Section 2(39) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, defines ''sale price'' as under:--
"2(39) "sale price" means the amount paid or payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale less any sum allowed by way of any kind of discount or rebate according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof.
Explanation I.-In the case of a sale by hire purchase agreement, the prevailing market price of the goods on the date on which such goods are delivered to the buyer under such agreement, shall be deemed to be the sale price of such goods; Explanation II.-Where according to the terms of a contract, the cost of freight and other expenses in respect of the transportation of goods are incurred by the dealer for or on behalf of the buyer, such cost of freight and other expenses shall not be included in the sale price but the burden of such proof shall lie on the dealer."
14.2 Section 2(J) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 defines ''turnover'' as under:--
""turnover" used in relation to any dealer liable to tax under this Act means the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by him in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any prescribed period and determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder."
14.3 Section 2(44) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, defines ''turnover'' as under:--
""turnover" means the aggregate amount received or receivable by a dealer for sales as referred to in clause (38) including the purchase price of the goods which are subject to purchase tax under section 11 of the Act;
Explanation : Tax charged or collected and shown separately in the sale bill/cash memorandum or in the accounts shall not form part of turnover."
On conjoint reading of the definition of the sale price and turnover, in my view, both paid and payable and amount received or receivable has been used under the Act, so in my view, payable and receivable would mean that the assessee was entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 682/- per cylinder initially and did receive but on account of rate revised by the Oil Companies on the basis of some expert report, it cannot be said that payable or receivable would mean final amount determined @ the rate of Rs. 645/- per cylinder.
In my view, the Tax Board, after going into the letters issued by the Oil Companies, which have been reproduced herein above, the variation in the price initially at Rs. 682/- per cylinder, which too was provisional and later on at Rs. 645/- per cylinder on the basis of the expert committee report of M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers, cannot be said to be price reduction or discount as it is not in the nature of discount as contended by counsel for the assessee. It is true that on the basis of the purchase order dt. 04/05/2000 wherein rate of Rs. 682/- per cylinder was quoted, the assessee may have supplied goods @ Rs. 682/- per cylinder which as per the understanding can be said to be final at that point of time when the delivery was required to be given by the assessee and the assessee also, in fact, delivered goods @ Rs. 682/-, so also received sale consideration @ Rs. 682/-per cylinder.
In normal parlance, discount can be said to be a bargain in between purchaser and seller whereas the present case cannot be said to be a case of discount or bargain as the purchaser, on the basis of the expert committee report, has reduced the value on its own and voluntarily which was duly accepted/admitted by the assessee and not challenged anywhere. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said to be a case of discount. Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon certain judgments, which are prima-facie dealing with the cases where the seller allowed discount to the purchaser and the courts, in such circumstances, came to the conclusion that, it being a discount, the discounted value is required to be adopted. I may consider a case where the purchaser accepts goods and after delivery is taken, it is noticed that the quality is not upto the mark and the goods needs to be returned back and after mutual discussion, some price variation is there in the shape of reduction of the value, then in my view, it cannot be said to be a case of reduction/discount as everything has happened after delivery which cannot be said to be price reduction or discount. As has been expressed earlier, if the value was reduced by the purchaser on the basis of some expert committee report and in subsequent bills the amount was reduced by the purchaser on final settlement, then in that case, it was an inter-se dispute in between the assessee as well as the Oil Companies but in so far as the claim that sales tax was required to be paid on the lower value of Rs. 645/- per cylinder, in my view, cannot be said to be correct on the part of the assessee.
The judgment relied upon by counsel for the assessee of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Motor Industries Co. was a case of additional trading discount called "service discount" which was over and above the normal trade discount in consideration of the extra business derived by the assessee by reason of the marketing of its goods through them, and reflected truly by the accounts of the assessee was deductible as a discount wherein the claim was allowed by the High Court and on further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the said additional trade discount was allowable and it did not make any difference whether the discount was allowed at the time of sale, but on a later date, at the end of the month, in my view, this judgment is inapplicable on the facts of the present case.
The judgment, relied upon by counsel for the assessee in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering the case of discount which was not initially given but the discount was given subsequently at the end of the year and it was observed that it does not make any difference, if the discount was given at the time of delivery/issuance of bill or subsequently, at the end of the year when the accounts were settled and in view of the aforesaid facts, the claim of the Revenue was dismissed and the claim of the assessee was upheld. This judgment was also considering about discount and therefore, inapplicable on the facts of the instant case.
The judgment, relied upon by counsel for the assessee in the case of Bojaraj Textile Mills Ld. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Madras High Court was considering a case relating to manufacturing defects wherein there was a contract fixing the price @ Rs. 65/- per kg. but on account of manufacturing defect, the seller granted a quality reduction of Rs. 14/- per kg. which was the rate mutually agreed and the original contract was rescinded so far as the price was concerned and a new contract was substituted and it was held that the sale price had to be taken at a figure after considering the new rate contracted in the light of the manufacturing defect noticed. This case is also inapplicable in the facts of the instant case as in the said case the reduction was there on account of manufacturing defect.
This Court, in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Tata Oil Mills Ltd. (supra) had an occasion to consider a case where Tata Company entered into an agreement with its retail dealers to which it allowed rebate to the extent of reduction in prices on the actual stock held by the dealers on the date of reduction irrespective of the rate of the date of supply. This judgment is also inapplicable on facts.
This Court, in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Ltd. and anr. (supra) was considering a case of a company which was manufacturing Refrigerators, TV, Washing Machines etc and was allowing discount on the occasion of festivals or on other occasions and other schemes as well. The assessee claimed that the sales tax is purportedly on the discounted price and not on the gross value of the items as ultimately, the assessee received only net value and was liable to pay the tax only on the net value. The said manufacturer was also selling goods of other manufacturers and granted discount on both the items, manufactured by it as well as the other manufacturers, however, in so far as the discount allowed by the assessee to its manufactured goods was concerned, the Revenue was satisfied but the Revenue objected to the discounted value having been taken on the items manufactured by other dealers and sold by the assessee and this Court, after considering the definition as given under the Sales Tax Law and considering judgments held that tax was leviable after the discount having been allowed by a trader whether the goods manufactured by it and it does not make any difference, if the goods are of other manufacturers. This judgment is also distinguishable as it is entirely on discount.
In the case of IFB Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2012 SC 1468 : (2012) 192 ECR 327 : (2013) 295 ELT 186 : (2012) 3 SCALE 12 : (2012) 4 SCC 618 : (2012) 49 VST 1 : (2012) AIRSCW 1734 : (2012) 2 Supreme 225 , the Hon''ble Apex Court held ad-infra:
"Before parting with the case, we may State that so far as the special discount is concerned, all that the authorities have to look into whether as a matter of fact, the petitioner received only the sum originally charged less the discount. It is the look out of the traders to see that the trade increase and it is for that purpose the trade discount is given. Hence, a person may not be able to clearly prove as to why the special discount was given. But if there has been a consistent practice of giving special discount, that has to be accepted by the assessing authority."
Therefore, this case is also inapplicable as it related to a discount only.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and anr. v. Rajasthan Chemist Association (supra), relied upon by counsel for the assessee, was considering a case of levy of tax on sale of goods as to whether it was to be on a completed sale or not, is entirely on a different proposition and is inapplicable. The other judgments, relied upon by counsel for the assessee are also inapplicable and distinguishable.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee stressed that under the Central Excise Act of this very transaction, the Commissioner (Appeals) in identical circumstances, had reduced the burden of incidence and refunded the additional excise duty which was upheld by the CESTAT Bench, New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Universal Cylinders Ltd. (supra) and the SLP was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2005(179) ELT A-41. However, in my view, the facts are distinguishable as the sole issue ultimately revolved there was about "unjust enrichment".
As regards the judgment relied upon by ld. counsel for the Revenue in the case of MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (supra), in my view, the same is more nearer to the issue involved in the present matter, as in the said case the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering a case of refund of excise duty on the differential between the price on the date of removal and the reduced price at which tyres were sold at the direction of the Government. It was contended that the price list was approved on 14/05/1983 and subsequent thereto, on account of consumer resistance, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, directed them, pursuant to the decision taken at the meeting with tyre manufacturers, to roll back the price to pre 14/05/1983 level and it is on account of this roll back of prices that there came about a differential in the price on the basis of which the assessee claimed refund of excise duty to that extent and after analyzing the above facts, the Hon''ble Apex Court held ad-infra:
"Once the assessee has cleared the goods on the classification and price indicated by him at the time of the removal of the goods from the factory gate, the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that date and time and subsequent reduction in prices for whatever reason cannot be a matter of concern to the Central Excise Department insofar as the liability to payment of excise duty was concerned. This is the view which was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Indo Hacks Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise1985 ECR 1489 and it seems to us that the Tribunal''s view that the duty is chargeable at the rate and price when the commodity is cleared at the factory gate and not on the price reduced at a subsequent date is unexceptionable. Besides as rightly observed by the Tribunal the subsequent fluctuation in the prices of the commodity can have no relevance whatsoever so far as the liability to pay excise duty is concerned. That being so, even if we assume that the roll back in the price of tyres manufactured by the appellant-company was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself, without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it is shown that there was some agreement in this behalf with the Government and the latter had agreed to refund the excise duty to the extent of the reduced price. That being so, we see no merit in this appeal brought by the assessee and dismiss the same with no order as to costs."
Consequently, in the light of what has been observed herein above, the question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.