2004 (1) TMI 76 - SC - Central Excise

whether the cost of metal/tin containers used in packing of manufactured goods viz. vegetable products is includible in the assessable value of the goods - Held that - The Tribunal has not referred to any decided cases wherein the proposition enunciated by it was laid down specifically. Be that as it may for the purpose of appreciating the controversy at issue we feel that a perusal of the relevant documents which were placed before the concerned authorities such as contract the certificate of the Chartered Accountant referred to in Paragraph 40 of the Memo of Appeal filed in the Tribunal may be necessary. Not even the show cause notice and the adjudication order is placed on record. We are not inclined to accede to this belated request of the learned counsel for the appellant to grant time to file the relevant papers now especially for the reason that the appeal is quite an old one and the dispute dates back to 1979 - No legal issue raised for consideration - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the cost of metal/tin containers used in packing of manufactured goods is includible in the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis:
The appeal raised the issue of whether the cost of metal/tin containers used for packing vegetable products should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The appellant argued that the security deposit equivalent to the packing material cost had been collected, and as the containers were not returned, the cost should be included as per the Central Excise Act. The appellant contended that the contract stipulating the return of containers was not acted upon and was a mere subterfuge to evade duty.

The CEGAT allowed the appeal without delving into the factual aspects, stating that if the packing material was durable and returnable, its value could not be included in the assessable value. The Supreme Court noted the lack of specific references to decided cases by the Tribunal and emphasized the importance of relevant documents like the contract and the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. However, these documents were not provided, and the Court declined the appellant's request for more time due to the age of the appeal and the absence of crucial materials. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without expressing any view on the legal issue, citing the lack of necessary information to address the matter adequately.