9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are that appellants manufacture aerated water and fill them in bottles supplied by their buyers as they neither manufacture nor own such bottles. These buyers hire bottles from M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd. (which is a distinct Public Limited Company) than the appellants. The hire charges of Rs. 3/- per crate of 24 bottles up to 31-5-1983 and of Rs. 3.50 per crate from 1-6-1983 accrue to its owners and not appellants, though they are collected at factory gate of appellants. Security deposit of Rs. 1/- per bottle is also charged. Similarly, handling and forwarding (transport) charges of Rs. 3/- per crate are also charged by M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd. While appellants say that these charges are as per invoices of M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd. and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value. (vi) Regarding handling (freight) charges, he cites decision of Vijayawada Bottling Co. as in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). He also cites the case of Decora Ceramics (P) Ltd. as in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.) = 1986 (9) ECR 105. (vii) Hiring charges paid by buyer for bottles are not part of manufacturing charges. He cites B.K. Wires Manufacturing Co. v. CCE as in 1984 ECR 1913. 4. Ld. D.R. submits that the order impugned has exhaustively dealt with the issue and reiterates the same. He submits that profits generated by appellants ultimately passes on to holding company. He also reiterated the order on suppression of facts and invokability of extended period. He submits that Ld. Collector has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had no legal connection with the appellants. (d) There is great force in Ld. Advocate's submissions that the glass bottles were durable and returnable containers. Appellants sold their goods on condition that buyers supply the containers for filling and same would be returned to them. (e) Since appellants did not provide the transport facilities to the buyers, the goods were sold on FOB ex-factory gate basis. Therefore, the question of transport charges being included does not arise in the normal price at the factory gate. 6. Since the appeal is allowable on merits, there is no need to examine the rival submissions on limitation of time bar. In view of the aforesaid findings and an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
