9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hashtri, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of excisable goods falling under Chapter 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 and 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, 1985. The appellant charged the extra amount of Rs. 2 per kg as packing charges in their invoices over and above the assessable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority along with penalty and interest. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order. Therefore, this appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, a letter was placed in the file wherein the appellant requested for deciding the matter on merits. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted that packing cost on account of durable and returnable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellant though charged Rs. 2 per kg as packing charges, which is on account of providing the metal barrels, which is in durable and returnable nature, it is settled law that packing cost of durable and returnable packing is not includible in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of providing the durable and returnable packing i.e. metal barrels is refundable, if the metal barrel is returned by the customer. In these facts and circumstances, the packing charge of Rs. 2 per kg collected by the appellant from their customer is not includible in the assessable value. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. ( Pronounced in Court on 08.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
