9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the cost of secondary packing in wooden boxes should be added to the value of batteries and torches for excise duty purposes.
Summary: The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the cost of secondary packing in wooden boxes should be included in the value of batteries and torches for excise duty assessment. The torches and batteries in question were initially packed in Polythene boxes, which were then placed in Cardboard Cartons. While packing in Polythene bags and Cardboard Cartons was deemed includible in the value determination, the dispute centered around the wooden boxes in which the Cardboard Cartons were placed at the factory gate. The Court referred to a previous case involving secondary packing of cigarettes in corrugated fibre board containers and concluded that the cost of such secondary packing, including wooden boxes, should not be included in the value for excise duty purposes. The Court held that the wooden boxes were used to protect the torches and batteries during transport and were not necessary for the sale of these products in the wholesale market at the factory gate. The Court reached the conclusion that the cost of wooden boxes should not be included in the value for excise duty assessment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order in the Writ Petition and the Appellate Collector's order were set aside, and the assessing authority was directed to proceed with assessment in accordance with the Court's judgment. Any excess amount recovered by the Revenue was to be refunded to the appellants by the assessing authority within six months from the date of the judgment.
|
