9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re as follows :- The Appellants are manufacturers of sheet glass. The question for consideration is whether the costs of wooden crates, in which the sheet glass is packed, is includible in the assessable value of sheet glass. 3.The relevant portion of Section 4 of The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') reads as follows : "SECTION 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be - (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st in which the cost of wooden crates was not included. The Assistant Collector passed orders including the costs of the wooden packing in the assessable value of the glass sheets. The Appeals filed by the Appellants were allowed by the Collector (Appeals) and it was held that the special packing was not necessary for making them marketable and thus the costs is not includible in the value of the glass sheets. 6.It appears that the Assistant Collector still approved the price list only by including the costs of the wooden crates. The Appellants thus filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court claiming that the action of the Assistant Collector was in defiance of the Order of the Collector (Appeals) and that the Assistant Collector be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent cannot be faulted. 11.In support of their contention that the wooden cases are durable and returnable the Appellants rely upon a Clause in their bills/invoices which reads as follows : "Packing charge :- packing of durable and returnable nature subsequent to initial packing for facilitating safe transport which will be refunded if the same are returned intact @ Rs.140/- per crate." 12.Reliance is also placed upon the case of Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 727 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act the costs of packing which is of durable and returnable nature is to be excluded. It is held that there must be an arrangement between the buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the manufacturer intended to use it again and again and thus the condition must be one that the buyer must return the packing to the seller. It has been held that the mere theoretical possibility of the crates being returned was not sufficient. 16.Mr. Venkataramani has supported the view of the High Court and submitted that the cost would only get excluded if the crates are actually returned. 17.We have considered the submission of the parties. In our view, the law laid down by this Court in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. (supra) is the correct law. There is no necessity that the crates must be actually returned. So long as there is an obligation on the seller to take back the crates, if the buyer chooses to return them, it is suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
