9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llments. The disputed question to be decided by us is whether the cans were returnable within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the cost of the same was includible in the assessable value of the bakery products. The contention of the appellants is that the cans were returnable and its cost was not to be included in the assessable value. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate, has cited (i) Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sathe Biscuits and Others v. Union of India and others reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 39 (Bombay) and (ii) decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Corn Products Company and another v. Union of India and another reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if the packing is of durable nature and is returnable under the terms of the contract between the manufacturer and the wholesale buyer, then the cost of packing is excludible from the assessable value for the purpose of excise duty. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Lucky Biscuit Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna [1984 (18) E.L.T. 96]. In the present case, there was no contract or agreement between the appellants and the buyer to return the cans to the appellants. The cost of the cans was charged to the buyer spread over six equal installments. Thus, on each occasion of supply of the bakery products, one-sixth of the cost of the can was recovered from the buyer along with price of the goods. This recovery w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial. Even the Supreme Court in its latest judgment in the case of K. Radha Krishaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise - 1987 (27), E.L.T. 598, has taken the same view. In the present case, the arrangement between the buyer and assessee was to charge the cost of the cans in six equal installments on each occasion, the cans made a trip between the assessee and the buyer. This itself is sufficient to prove that there was an arrangement for the return of the drums at least on five occasions, therefore, the cost of packing charged on first five installments is excludible in terms of the Supreme Court decision as referred to above. There is another aspect of the matter also. The existence of an arrangement or a contract for the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
