9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue, they claimed deduction at the rate of Rs. 2.68 per crate, said to be post-manufacturing expenses. A show cause notice dated 1-5-1981 was issued to them. The deduction was subsequently raised to Rs. 3/- per crate. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Agra, who under his order dated 26-2-1983 rejected the deductions claimed by the assessee in the name of the post-manufacturing expenses. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the claim was restricted only to the rent on containers, shells repairing, breakages and burst of empty bottles. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) discussed the matter with reference to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), and observed that all these charges were being collected from their customers. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Agra, was confirmed and the appeal by M/s. Agra Beverages was rejected. 3. The matter was posted for hearing on 7-4-1995 when Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR represented the respondent. The appellant had filed a misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case and have given our due thought and consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. 7. The miscellaneous application is allowed. 8. The matter relates to the years 1981 and 1982. The appellants had declared their ex-duty price per crate in Part-1 proforma for determination of value under Section 4 of the Act. From such declared ex-duty price, they had sought deduction of Rs. 2.68 per crate, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 3/- per crate. These amounts were collected from their dealers separately. The main contention of the appellants was that "duty can be levied only on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit" (refer page 21 of the paper book). This contention has been categorically repulsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their historic judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (refer paras 13, 22, 33, and 40 of the judgment). Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellants conceded that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd., their claim in respect of (i) salaries, wages, allowances etc., of sales staff (ii) conveyance and travelling allowances of sales staff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e use glass bottles for marketing the aerated waters manufactured by us, which are of a durable nature and returnable to us. These bottles are never sold and always remain our property and we charge a rent on them at the rate of Rs. 0.75 per crate of 24 bottles. The rent so charged is a compensation on (a) loss of interest on containers and (b) the loss on containers representing difference between the purchase price and deposit price on containers. A certificate to this effect, from out Chartered Accountant, is appended for your perusal." 9. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) referred to the Supreme Court observations as contained in Para-B(vi) of the operative part of their judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 869 (S.C.), and did not find the appellant's plea as tenable. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) further, observed that these were part of manufacturing activities and were necessary for bringing the excisable goods into the wholesale marketable condition. 10. The appellants were manufacturing and selling aerated waters and were charging a price for such aerated waters sold by them in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp;In the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.), the matter related to the delivery of the filled cylinders and collection of the empty cylinders. In the present case, repairing of the wooden crates (which is not a packing for aerated waters) and compensation on loss of interests on containers are concerned. We do not find any relevancy of the India Oxygen Ltd. case to the present proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that as there was an ascertainable ex-factory price, it should be the basis upon which the value was to be determined. In that case, some of the sales were from depots/service centres. The Supreme Court held that if the ex-factory price is not ascertainable and goods are to be assessed ex-depot, then it is for the manufacturer to claim on the basis of actual evidence, of the admissible deductions from the price list. Similarly, the facts in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 730 (S.C.) were materially different. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed - "any income either in the shape of interest on deposits, notional or real, earned on the deposits for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
