9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y regarding their declaration of the value for assessment purposes. In the price-lists filed they declared separate values for the goods when supplied in mild steel drums belonging to them and for those supplied in m.s. drums belonging to the customers. In the case of goods supplied in their own drums they included the element of value of the m.s. drums in the assessable value claimed for the purpose of assessment, whereas in the case of goods supplied in such drums belonging to their customers the packing charges, namely, the cost of the m.s. drums was not included. The Supdt. of Central Excise approved the price-lists by including the value of the m.s. drums even in those cases where the goods were supplied in the drums belonging to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the packing even in those cases in view of the durable and returnable nature of the containers used. They further contended that in the case of bulk buyers where deliveries were made in drums belonging to the buyers, it could not be said that the goods were sold in a packed condition. Shri S.M. Thakore, the learned Advocate who appeared for the personal hearing, stated that such sales could be compared to the case of supplies of kerosene by a dealer in the container provided by the customer himself. He stated that the containers in such cases assumed the character of a mode of delivery, other than the delivery of the goods in packed condition. They have further contended that Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, because the question of exclusion or inclusion of value of durable and returnable containers from the value of excisable goods for which the containers were used arose only when the manufacturer incurred any expenditure on the value of such containers and not in other cases of the type under consideration-and that explained how a suitable provision for exclusion of the value of durable and returnable containers accordingly existed in law, vide section 4(4)(d)(i). 3. Government observe that the major part of the assessee's production is sold in containers supplied by the buyers. This is evident from the following data supplied by the assessee regarding the quantity of the goods cleared by them du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the buyer to the assessee. When the cost of durable and returnable packing provided by the manufacturer is excluded for determining the assessable value it does not stand to reason to deny the benefit where excisable goods are supplied in containers belonging to the buyers. Government see no reason why the buyer should be discriminated against in such a case from the point of view of burden of excise duty compared to the situation in which they chose to buy the very same goods in durable and returnable containers belonging to the manufacturer. Government are, therefore, of the view that the value of durable packing supplied by the customers in this case should not be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
