2014 (9) TMI 149 - SC - Central Excise

Dutiability of packing material - Valuation of soda ash for the period 1981 to 1985 - arrangement for return of the packing material - Held that - the appellant fairly submitted that he does not intend to press the issue with regard to durability and returnability. He has confined his submission with regard to levy of excise duty on the packing material supplied by the buyer. - if the packing materials are supplied by the buyer, the levy could not have been imposed. The said contention is absolutely correct in view of the law laid down in M/s. Hindustan Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (8) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - matter remanded back to the Tribunal exclusively for delineation on the said issue. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessable value of soda ash for the period 1981 to 1985.
2. Dispute on the inclusion of the value of gunny bags used for packing of soda ash in the assessable value.
3. Contention regarding the levy of excise duty on packing material supplied by the buyer.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessable value of soda ash for the period 1981 to 1985. The Tribunal had rejected the claim made by the appellant, citing a previous decision reported as Tata Chemicals vs. CCE - 2000 (121) ELT 36. The Tribunal considered evidence presented by the appellant, including letters and other evidence, and concluded that the value of gunny bags used for packing soda ash by the appellant should be included in the assessable value of soda ash.

2. The appellant contended that the claim before the authorities was different, arguing that excise duty should not be levied on packing materials supplied by the buyer. The appellant also raised the point that the packing material was durable and returnable. However, the Tribunal focused on the durability and returnability aspect based on its previous decision for the years 1981 to 1985, without addressing the issue of levy on packing material supplied by the buyer. The appellant's counsel decided not to press the issue of durability and returnability, instead focusing on the levy of excise duty on packing material supplied by the buyer.

3. The Attorney General acknowledged that if the packing materials are supplied by the buyer, the levy of excise duty could not have been imposed, citing the law laid down in M/s. Hindustan Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1989) 4 SCC 323. As the Tribunal did not address this specific aspect, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration solely on the issue of levy of excise duty on packing material supplied by the buyer. The Supreme Court clarified that setting aside the Tribunal's order would not affect the assessment years 1981 to 1985 and ruled that there would be no order as to costs.