1996 (6) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether charges collected for washing tankers are part of the value of excisable goods.
- Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(i) regarding the inclusion of packing costs in assessable value.
- Application of previous judicial decisions on similar matters.
- Assessment of the evidence regarding the collection of separate charges for washing tankers.

Analysis:

The appeal in question was filed by M/s. National Rayon Corporation Limited challenging the Order-in-Appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which held that charges collected for washing tankers are part of the value of Caustic Soda Lye. The appellant argued that the tankers provided by buyers were durable packing, the cost of which should not be included in the assessable value of the goods. They charged a fixed amount for cleaning the tankers before filling them with goods. The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. to support their argument.

The Department contended that the charges were uniformly collected in all cases and there was no evidence of cases where these charges were not collected. They argued that cleaning was part of the filling process within the factory premises, not for the transport of goods. The Tribunal analyzed Section 4(4)(d)(i), which includes the cost of packing in the assessable value, even if the packing is durable. The Tribunal clarified that the cost of packing the goods in durable containers should be included in the assessable value.

It was established that separate charges were indeed collected for washing the containers before filling the goods, and this activity was considered part of the value of the goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International to support this conclusion. The appellant argued that washing was only done when necessary, but the evidence showed that charges were uniformly collected from all customers, indicating a consistent practice.

The Tribunal also referenced a Tribunal decision regarding processes related to manufacturing activities of excisable goods. The appellant cited the Indian Oxygen Ltd. Supreme Court decision, but the Tribunal distinguished the case based on the nature of ancillary activities involved. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no issue with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, and rejected the appeal based on the evidence and legal interpretations presented.