1980 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to inclusion of cost of dealwood packing in assessing excise duty.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Pressure Cookers, contested the inclusion of dealwood packing cost in assessing excise duty. The Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector upheld the inclusion, citing Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner argued that dealwood packing is a post-manufacturing cost and should not be subject to excise duty, as it is not incidental to the manufacture of Pressure Cookers. The Government of India, in a separate case, ruled that such packing is secondary and not necessary at the time of removal from the factory gate.

The petitioner maintained that they purchase the dealwood cases from the market and do not manufacture them as part of Pressure Cookers' production. Post-manufacturing costs are traditionally not included in assessable value for excise duty. The provision in Section 4(4)(d)(i) states that the cost of packing, except durable and returnable packing, should be included. The term 'returnable' does not necessitate actual return but implies the capability of being returned. The Gujarat High Court also supported this interpretation in a similar case. The judgment concluded that excluding the cost of secondary dealwood packing from the assessable value aligns with the nature of excise duty and Union List Entry 84.

In the final ruling, the Court made the writ absolute, instructing the respondents to exclude the cost of secondary dealwood packing from the assessable value of the goods and approve the petitioner's price list for the relevant period.