9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said decisions relied upon by the Asstt. Commissioner fully apply in respect of the valuation of the goods where the packing materials itself is being supplied by the customers, but has decided not to follow the same on the ground that the provisions of Section 4 were amended w.e.f. 1.7.2000. The very same decisions stand considered by the Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 650 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] wherein held that if some goods are marketable without being put into the containers, the cost of containers including their testing charged would not be includible in the assessable value - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial (containers) in the assessable value of the goods. But did not include the cost of containers, supplied by the buyers, in the assessable value. There are number of judgements of Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the similar issue is settled. I quote gist of some of these judgements as under:- i) In the case of M/s.Packart Glass Vs. CCE, Vadadora - 2002 (139) ELT 393 (T), the Honble Tribunal has held that the cost of the packing supplied by the buyer cannot be included in the value, irrespective of whether it is durable or not. ii) In the case of M/s. Hindustan Polymers Vs. CCE 1989 (43) ELT 165 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court gave a detailed verdict that if the containers are supplied by the buyer, it is illogical to inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly apply in respect of the valuation of the goods where the packing materials itself is being supplied by the customers, but has decided not to follow the same on the ground that the provisions of Section 4 were amended w.e.f. 1.7.2000. 5. However, we find that the very same decisions stand considered by the Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2014 (304) ELT 310 (Tribunal-Delhi) and it stands observed as under:- "* The above judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the cases of Jauss Polymers Ltd., reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.) and CCE v. Superior Products, reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Though these judgments are in respect of the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
