Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (11) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rpose of Central Excise duty and whether value of correcting fluid only should form the basis of assessable value of the correcting fluid and not the total value of the correcting fluid and thinner. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- (a) The appellants manufacture correcting fluid falling under Tariff Heading 3823.00. They also purchase diluter in bulk falling under Tariff Heading 3814.00. They repack diluter into small glass bottles and seal them. They clear correcting fluid and diluter separately. In respect of correcting fluid they pay Central Excise duty which is at 15% ad valorem. They do not pay duty on diluter packed in small glass bottles as they avail of the benefit of full exemption from Central Excise duty un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of correcting fluid and diluter should both be assesseed under Heading 3823.00 as a set of articles and the value for assessment should be the total value of the correcting fluid and diluter taken together in respect of one double pack and not the value of the correcting fluid only. He confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 1,04,894.22 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal before us. 3. During the hearing before us, the learned advocate for the appellants has argued that in terms of Note 2(d) to Chapter 38 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as New Tariff), Dilut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be the value of the correcting fluid and thinner because the value of the goods in the form cleared is to be taken for assessment of excise duty. For his arguments he has relied on the Tribunal s decision reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 936 (Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. India Dyestuff Industries Ltd., Bombay). He has argued that Note 2 to Section VI shall govern the classification in this case. The learned Departmental Representative has, however, confirmed that the thinner was not manufactured by the appellants. The same was purchased in bulk from outside and packed in small containers. 5. We have considered the arguments and the records placed before us. There is no dispute about the facts stated above. Note 2 of Section VI of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion VI or VII. Chapter 38 under which correcting fluid and thinner are assessable, fall in Section VI of the Tariff. Thinners are specifically mentioned in the Tariff Heading 3814.00. Chapter Note 2(d) says that correcting fluid are included in Heading No. 38.23 and these are not to be classified in another heading of this Schedule. The contention of the appellants is that the correcting fluid is used as it is and diluter is mixed as and when required. This is confirmed by the certificate given by the Director of Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur University (Supra). This fact has not been disputed by the learned Departmental Representative. Correcting fluid as manufactured by the appellants is a ready to use manufactured product. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, Interpretative Rule 3(b) is not applicable in this case. 7. The learned advocate has cited two decisions of this Tribunal in support of his arguments. In Kalinga Paints Chemicals Industries (Supra), the respondents therein manufactured Aluminium medium in their factory. They paid duty on the same, before clearance. They procured aluminium paste from outside. The two products were packed separately and put in a common carton for marketing as aluminium paints. The operation of putting the two materials separately had been carried out outside the factory. The Tribunal held that this operation was not manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The other decision relied on by the learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates