1996 (4) TMI 241 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Assessable value determination based on powdering and packing charges for Alumina Sulphate.

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, the issue revolved around whether the cost of powdering and packing charges should be included in the assessable value of Alumina Sulphate when it is cleared from the factory in powder form and duly packed. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Alumina Sulphate, argued that since the goods were sometimes delivered in lump form without packing, the cost of powdering and packing should not be part of the assessable value. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had previously held that when the goods were supplied in powdered form, powdering and packing charges had to be included in the value, as the goods could not be supplied loose.

The respondents contended that under the Central Excises & Salt Act, the form in which excisable goods are delivered to the buyer at the factory gate is crucial for valuation. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue was not whether powdering is a manufacturing process but rather if the cost of Alumina Sulphate in lump form should be the basis for assessing duty on the powdered form. It was determined that the goods must be assessed in the form delivered to the buyer, which in this case was powder form, and thus the cost of powdering was considered part of the value.

Regarding packing, it was noted that the packing was not of a durable or returnable nature, but rather a normal packing for delivery at the factory gate. The Tribunal emphasized that whether the packing was the product of the assessee or purchased externally was immaterial; what mattered was that the goods were delivered in the packed condition as required by the Act. The Tribunal further clarified that the issue was not whether powdering was a manufacturing process, but rather the relevance of the form in which the goods are delivered for determining the assessable value.

After considering all aspects, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and rejected them, affirming that the cost of powdering and packing charges should be included in the assessable value of Alumina Sulphate delivered in powder form.