2005 (2) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. In this case, the issue involved is whether value of packing material i.e. drums is to be included in the assessable value of sodium silicate. 4. The contention of the appellants is that sodium silicate is cleared in drums which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that there is no evidence on record produced by the appellants to show that there was any arrangement for return of packing material. The contention of the Revenue is that where there is an arrangement between the supplier and their customers regarding the return of the packing material, in such a situation, even if the packing material is not returned to the manufacturer, the value cannot be inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alue of the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the final products. 7. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Radha Krishaiah (supra) held that in the absence of any arrangement for return of packing material, the Revenue was right in not excluding the cost of packing in determination of the assessable value of the final products. In the present case, the appellants have not prod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X