1981 (3) TMI 87 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Valuation - Wrapper used for packing paper and paper board - Determination of assessable value

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value calculation for duty on wrapper paper and reel core in the case of manufacturers of paper and paper board.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioners, who are manufacturers of paper and paper board, charged duty on wrapper paper used for packing paper and paper board separately but did not include the amount collected towards duty on the wrapper paper in the assessable value. They also did not include the value of the reel core used in packing in the assessable value of the goods. The Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector held that the duty paid on the wrapper and the value of the reel core should be part of the assessable value. The petitioners argued that including duty on the wrapper and reel core in the assessable value amounted to double taxation and cited Section 4(4)(d)(ii) to support their contention that duty on the wrapper should be excluded.

During the personal hearing, the petitioners' advocate reiterated that duty on wrapper paper was not on the goods as it was recovered separately from customers. They argued that the reel cores were not part of the assessable goods and were already duty-paid, so their value should not be included. The advocate contended that the assessable value should only include the cost of manufacture and profit, not packing costs. They referenced a Gujarat High Court judgment to support their argument.

The Government referred to Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, stating that the value of goods includes the cost of packing unless it is of durable nature and returnable by the buyer. They clarified that packing includes wrappers, containers, reels, etc. The Government noted that the petitioners cleared goods in wrappers or on reel cores, which are considered packing. They stated that the duty paid on the wrapper should not be excluded from the assessable value. The Government disagreed with the Gujarat High Court judgment cited by the petitioners, mentioning contrary decisions like Aurofood Private Ltd. v. Union of India by the Madras High Court.

Ultimately, the Government found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders and rejected the revision application.