2011 (1) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise

Glass bottles, fragile items - used for selling the beverages and there was clear arrangement for return of these bottles as they are capable of repeated use beverages sold to dealers and ultimately to customers - recovery of amounts towards broken glass bottles cannot be treated as arising out of sale of such bottles Appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding dropping of proceedings on show cause notices for duty demand.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the department challenging a common Order-in-Appeal that upheld the dropping of proceedings on show cause notices demanding duty amounts for specific periods. The department contested the concurrent findings of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) that favored the respondent. The issue revolved around the classification of glass bottles and crates used for selling beverages, with a focus on whether these items were sold as such or formed part of the value of aerated water.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides, emphasizing the fragile nature of glass bottles used for beverages and the established arrangement for their return due to repeated use. The judgment referenced a previous decision in favor of the assessee for a similar issue concerning the same respondents. It highlighted that the recovery of amounts for broken or non-returned bottles should not be equated with the sale of bottles and crates as separate items. The order of the original authority clarified that the value of bottles and crates was integral to the value of aerated water, indicating that these items were not sold independently but were part of the beverage's value.

Based on the analysis and the precedent set by the earlier decision, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming that the glass bottles and crates were not to be treated as sold items but were essential components of the aerated water being sold. The judgment emphasized that the destruction or non-return of some bottles and crates, along with the recovery of their value, did not alter the fundamental nature of these items as part of the overall product sold to dealers and consumers.