9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packing in respect of 15 Kgs. tins on the ground that the containers for packing of 15 Kgs of vanaspati were of durable and returnable nature. The Asstt. Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 9-12-97 disallowed these deductions on the ground that (a) the respondent, at the time of hearing, admitted that they may not be entitled for deduction of the cost of packing, as they failed to produce any agreement between them and their customers for return of the containers, and (b) so far as deduction of equalised freight is concerned, since the goods have already been cleared, the same cannot be allowed. 1.1 On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 807/CE/BPL/04 dated 20-12-2004 set aside the Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on equalised basis, has to be allowed. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There are two issues involved in this case - whether the deduction for cost of packing, which is claimed to be of durable and returnable nature can be allowed for determining the assessable value of the goods and whether deduction of freight on equalised basis is permissible for determining the assessable value. 4. As regards the first issue regarding the cost of packing, though the same is claimed by the respondents to be of durable and returnable nature, they have not produced any agreement between them and their customers for return of the empty vanaspati containers. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 4(b) was a factory in any other place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods or a warehouse or any other place or premises where the excisable goods have been permitted to be destored without payment of duty. 5.2 With regard to Section 4(2), as it existed during the period of dispute, Hon ble Supreme Court in paras 49 50 of its judgment in case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International has held that when the goods are sold at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation including insurance charges from the place of removal to the place of delivery, even if charged on average basis, would be excludible. In view of settled legal position on this issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
