2014 (5) TMI 978 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - Enhancement in value of goods - Held that - Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act stood at the relevant time provides that the value , assessable to any excisable goods, - where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that cost of packing of a durable and returnable nature cannot be included in the assessable value. It is not in dispute that the plastic crates are durable in nature and these have been supplied by the buyer to the assessee. In view of the clear position in law, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excise duty demand on differential value of goods cleared in gunny bags and plastic crates.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, dropping the excise duty demand of Rs.20,71,721.27 on the differential value of goods cleared in gunny bags and plastic crates for the period of August 1998 to September 1999. The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles, sold bottles either in gunny bags or plastic crates. The assessable value declared for bottles in gunny bags was higher compared to those in plastic crates. The Revenue contended that the assessable value of bottles in plastic crates should be enhanced to match those in gunny bags. However, the adjudicating authority, considering plastic crates as durable and returnable, excluded their value from the assessable value, leading to the dropping of the demand. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the value of bottles sold in plastic crates should be based on those sold in gunny bags.

The Revenue, through the Addl. Commissioner, reiterated their grounds in the appeal memorandum. Despite no representation from the appellant during the proceedings, the appeal was considered due to its relevance to the year 2004 and the narrow scope of the issue. Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act was crucial in this case, stating that the assessable value of goods includes the cost of packing unless the packing is of a durable and returnable nature. As the plastic crates were durable and returnable, provided by the buyer, they were excluded from the assessable value. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, dismissing it as lacking in substance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original dropping the excise duty demand on the differential value of goods cleared in gunny bags and plastic crates, emphasizing the exclusion of the cost of durable and returnable packing from the assessable value as per the Central Excise Act.