2012 (9) TMI 855 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - non-inclusion of the value of the packaging material i.e. cylinders received from the purchaser of the appellant s final product - Held that - The excisable commodity was liquid chlorine which was sold by the assessee in tonners supplied by buyers. The buyers were not related to the assessee, nor had the Revenue a case that the price was not the sole consideration for the sale. On these facts, no amount attributable to the value of the tonners was held to be includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. We have not found any factual difference in the present case. The buyers were not alleged be affected by any extra-commercial consideration. Hence the value of the cylinders owned by the buyers was not includible in the assessable value of liquid Sulphur di-oxide - Following decision of Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore 2003 (12) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-inclusion of the value of packaging material in the assessable value of the final product.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad pertains to a case where the issue at hand revolved around the non-inclusion of the value of packaging material, specifically cylinders received from the purchaser of the appellant's final product, in the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been conclusively decided by a co-ordinate bench in the case of TCP Limited Vs CCE Madurai. In that case, it was established that the value of the cylinders owned by the buyers was not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods, as the buyers were not affected by any extra-commercial consideration. Drawing parallel from this precedent, the Tribunal held that the impugned order demanding differential duty and proposing a penalty was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the principle established in previous cases, such as the one involving Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore, where it was determined that the value of packaging material supplied by buyers need not be included in the assessable value of the final product, provided that the price was the sole consideration for the sale and there were no extra-commercial considerations involved. By applying this legal precedent to the current case, the Tribunal found no factual difference that would warrant a different outcome. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the value of the cylinders received from the purchaser should not be factored into the assessable value of the final product, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal in favor of the assessee.