2008 (10) TMI 446 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeal) based on Tribunal's order, inclusion of cost of packing material in assessable value, condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Issue 1: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeal) order
- The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) dated 08-3-2006, received in the Tribunal on 25-8-2006, along with an application for condonation of delay.
- The appeal was filed as the Commissioner's order was based on a Tribunal order where a similar issue in favor of the respondents was decided, but a subsequent Supreme Court decision highlighted the inclusion of packing material cost in assessable value.
- The Revenue argued for a liberal approach in condonation of delay, citing previous Supreme Court judgments, but the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and subsequently rejected the appeal as well.

Issue 2: Inclusion of cost of packing material in assessable value
- The Revenue contended that the cost of packing material should be included in the assessable value based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. M/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.
- The Revenue believed they had a strong case on merit and that certain facts claimed by the respondents were incorrect, emphasizing the need to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court decision.
- However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, rejected the Revenue's application for condonation of delay, as a similar application related to refund claims of the same appellant on the same issue was previously rejected, leading to the rejection of the appeal as well.

Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing appeal
- The Revenue sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, arguing for a liberal approach and citing Supreme Court judgments to support their contention.
- The Tribunal, after detailed consideration, rejected the application for condonation of delay, as a previous application related to the same appellant and issue was also rejected, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

*(Pronounced in the open Court)*