1998 (1) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal under Section 35E of the Act
2. Deduction allowed on the cost of caps and caping charges
3. Deduction of interest on credit allowed to customers
4. Deductibility of cost of corrugated boxes and partitions

Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal under Section 35E of the Act
The appeal raised objections regarding the maintainability under Section 35E of the Act, citing issues with timing, adherence to rules, and proper authorization. The Assistant Collector passed the Order-in-Original on 30-11-1988, and the order directing the appeal was passed within one year. The objections raised lacked supporting evidence, as the appeal application and review order were not provided by the assessee. Therefore, the objections regarding the Assistant Collector's signature and review order were deemed unsubstantiated.

Issue 2: Deduction allowed on the cost of caps and caping charges
The main dispute revolved around the deduction allowed by the Collector (Appeals) on the cost of caps and caping charges from the assessable value of Aluminium Collapsible Tubes. The Collector (Appeals) relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. The matter required fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision, indicating that the deduction of cost of caps and caping charges was not allowable based on the available facts.

Issue 3: Deduction of interest on credit allowed to customers
The deduction of interest on credit allowed to customers was deemed allowable based on the Supreme Court's decision in MRF Ltd. The judgment established that such deductions should be permitted, indicating a legal precedent that supported the deduction of interest in this context.

Issue 4: Deductibility of cost of corrugated boxes and partitions
The Assistant Collector accepted the contention that the packing of Aluminium Collapsible Tubes in corrugated boxes with partitions was durable and returnable, allowing the cost deduction. However, the Collector (Appeals) held the opposite view, stating that such packing was not durable and not returned. The Tribunal found the Collector (Appeals)' approach incorrect, emphasizing that durability and returnability depend on factors such as the nature of the packing material and trade practices. The matter required fresh consideration to examine evidence related to durability and returnability, focusing on agreements, understandings, and trade practices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals and cross-objection, allowing the deduction of interest on credit to customers, setting aside the findings on the deductibility of caps, caping charges, and corrugated boxes, and remanding the case for further consideration on these aspects by the adjudicating authority.