9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise, the amount involved is only ₹ 1,22,740 - no merit in this case - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2001, Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Falinariman, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. Radha Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. A. T. M. Sampath , Adv. Ms. T.S . Shanthi , Adv. Mr. Krishnakumar R.S ., Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.S . Mahadevan , Adv. ORDER Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2001 The respondent herein is a manufacturer of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act'). It is the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Others vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and Others reported in 2005 (3) SCC 468 = 2005-TIOL-33-SC-CX-LB . On the basis of this judgment submission of the appellant is that once the packaging is done to make the goods saleable in the market then the cost of the packing is to be included for the purpose of calculating the excise duty. He has referred to para 13 of the said judgment where the Court took note of its earlier decision in the case of Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 349 = 2002-TIOL-49-SC-CX- LB and noticed the test laid down therein, namely, whether a particular packing is done in order to put the goods in the condition in which they are generally sold in the wholesale market at the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld in the wholesale market at the factory gate . When we apply the said test to the facts of the present case, we find that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has categorically stated in his order that these containers were placed in paper cartons of various sizes for transportation from the factory gate for sale to individual customers or as stock transfers. Therefore, on the facts of this case, we find that the test laid down in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable. Even otherwise, the amount involved is only ₹ 1,22,740 /-. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. A.T.M . Sampath submits at Bar that his client has not even taken this amount from the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
