9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is generally not packed although some quantity of it was to be so packed. At the relevant time PTA captively consumed was not exempted from duty. The appellant filed price lists showing the cost of the PTA for captive consumption. This was not accepted on the ground that the price of PTA that was cleared for home consumption being available, it is that price that should be applied. Adjudicating on the notice the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), confirmed the demand for duty. He did not accept the appellant's contention that since the PTA cleared for captive consumption is not packed, packing cost is to be excluded. Hence this appeal. 2.The advocate for the appellant made it clear to us that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value. This is the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Polymers v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165. In other words, only the cost of packing incurred by the manufacturer of the goods would be includible in the value of the goods under Section 4(1)(a). The same position would obtain if the value is to be determined under Section 4(1)(b). In that case it is rule 6(b)(1) of the Valuation Rules that would apply. The value would have to be determined on the value of the goods cleared for home consumption after making adjustments on account of packing, as provided in proviso under this rule. 4.The Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Insecticides Limited v. CCE rested entirely upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Ashok Leylan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely consumed goods. 6.The departmental representative has no answer to the other arguments raised by the advocate for the appellant except with regard to quantification of duty. He contends that Section 4 of the Act provides for valuation of "such goods" i.e., excisable goods manufactured and cleared and there is no difference between the PTA unpacked or packed. What is cleared is PTA. This is really is no answer. If the appellant had cleared for home consumption PTA unpacked and PTA packed at the same time, the value of each of this has to be arrived at differently. Where the manufacturer does not incur any expenses on account of packing, the packing charges would not form part of the price. In other words, the unpacked PTA and packed P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector (Appeals) remanded the matter for quantification of duty. The duty was quantified by order dated 14-4-1996 of the Assistant Commissioner. The duty payable was determined to be Rs. 1,56,96,296/-. The amount was quantified after issuing notice to the appellant, which again did not give particulars of the items. In the reply to the notice the appellant broke up the demand into various components, interest on receivables, packing cost included in the assessable value and other deductions. The costs incurred towards packing are shown to be Rs. 79,47,651/-. In the absence of anything to the contrary in the records we accept that this is the amount that is payable on this account. 10.The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
