Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (8) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rding to the prevailing practice in this Tribunal, the appellants filed a supplementary appeal which has been assigned Appeal No. E/2547/89-A. As this supplementary appeal was not filed within the statutory time-limit of three months, they have filed a COD application as indicated above. After hearing both the parties before us, we have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeal and have allowed the COD application. 2. Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,92,366.59 was demanded from the appellants. This demand related to the Central Excise duty on the value of packing materials supplied by the appellants customers free of cost. In the stay application No. E/1466/89-A, the applicants/appellants have prayed for dispensing with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able value. We have heard the arguments of both sides on the stay application. The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment relied on by the learned DR is not applicable to the present case since the packing materials were supplied by the customers to the assessees (the appellants herein) without any charge. The appellants did not supply the packing materials and hence there is no question of including the cost thereof in the assessable value of the excisable goods. In the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (supra) which has been relied on by the learned Advocate, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that the cost of cartons or packing materials supplied by the buyers is not includible in the assessable value of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oned that the cartons would be supplied by the customers free of charge. This price list was finally approved. In price list No. 192/86 also the appellants declared that the cartons would be supplied by the customers free of cost and this price list was also approved without any modification. Three show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 27-6-1986, proposing to recover Central Excise duty on the cost of packing materials (cartons) supplied by the customers free of charge. On 15-10-1986, the Assistant Collector gave a personal hearing to the appellants, but no order has been passed by him so far. On 22-8-1986, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote to the appellants that the proceedings r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ), she has argued that the cost of the cartons should not be included in the assessable value. Further, she has argued that all the demands are time-barred. There was no suppression of facts by the appellants. The Range Inspector s office is situated in the factory premises of the appellants and the Central Excise Officer posted therein was aware of the cartons. Moreover, the purchase orders enclosed to the price lists mentioned that card board cartons were supplied by the customers free of cost. She has also argued that the appellants mentioned before the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut that two proceedings relating to two price lists were pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The judgment of Karnataka Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned DR is not applicable to the instant cases. The judgment of Calcutta High Court is also not applicable as the ratio given therein is that the cost of raw materials supplied by the customers should be includible in the assessable value of the excisable product. In the present case the dispute is regarding the value of the packing cartons supplied by the customers and not the raw materials. Hence, the judgment of Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the present cases. 7. The argument of the learned Advocate is that on merits the appellant s cases are fully covered in their favour by Karnataka High Court judgment in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. case (supra). Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates