9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Collector (Appeals), dated 12-11-1993. 2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to the includibility in the assessable value of the cost of containers in which Chewing Tobacco is sold by the appellants. 3. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of chewing tobacco bearing brand names and classified under Chapter sub-heading 2401.41 of the Central Excise Tariff. Chewing tobacco is sold in tin containers which is the unit of sale. Since the tin containers are not returnable, according to the appellants, the cost of tin containers is inbuilt in the sale price and the cost of tin container is not separately charged from the customers and no separate bills are raised for collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly charged. 4. By SCN, dated 8-2-1993, the Department called upon the respondent to show cause why differential duty on the basis of approved price list adding the cost of the container at the rate of Rs. 10.50 per kg. should not be demanded. 5.The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand. By the impugned order, Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. 6.Ld. Counsel Shri Gopal Prasad appearing for the appellants submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had not given any reason as to why the declared price was not correct and the approved revision of the price list was not genuine. It was also contended that Rule 6(b) of C.E. (Valuation) Rules, 1975 was not attracted in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne up. This showed that the appellants had worked out the costing in an artificial manner. Further, even according to Section 4(4)(d)(i), the cost of primary packing excepting durable and returnable packing was includible in the price of the goods and the cost of tin containers being primary packing charges would be includible in the assessable value. 8.We have considered the submissions. 9.The appellants contend that since their dealered price was the ex-factory price to independent wholesale buyers, the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) was fully satisfied and therefore, there was no warrant for further examination of any other document or for production of any costing document. Since the branded chewing tobacco was always sold in a tin c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
