9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not permissible (i) Discount for damages in transit. (ii) Cost of durable and returnable packaging (HDPE bags). (iii) Bank charges for collection of sale proceeds. (iv) Post removal handling expenses. (v) C&FA remuneration. (vi) Interest on finished goods in stock. After the Apex Court's decision in the case of MRF, the assessee decided to voluntarily surrender abatements claimed on issues at Sl. Nos. (iv), (v) and (vi) above, and did not contest denial of the same. In respect of the denial of deductions on account of Sl. Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) above, they preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Jute Manufacturing Company - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 593 (MP High Court); M/s. Indexport Limited i.e. M/s. Guljag Chemicals and Plastics Private Limited - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 710; Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 727; C.C.E. v. EID Parry (I) Ltd. - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 139; Maharashtra Vegetable Products v. CCE - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 173 (T); Wipro Products v. U.O.I. - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 281 (Bom.), the appellants submit that the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order was incorrect and not as per the law and since the Wheel Detergent was sold with a categorical stipulation, as mentioned above, an option was available with the buyer to return the re-usable HDPE bags, they were, therefore, entitled to abatement of cost to determine the values, as per S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd considered the material on record and find that : (a) This appeal pertains to operations of M/s. Stephan Chemical Limited, which subsequently was taken over by M/s. Hind Lever Chemicals Limited, as per Agreement dated 25-11-1996, read with Supplementary Agreement dated 31-12-1996. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, being the successors in interest are prosecuting this appeal in their name. (b) In order to substantiate the contention, that at the material point of time, M/s. Stephan Chemicals Limited was an independent entity which was engaged in the manufacture and sale of Wheel detergent powder, sample copies of the invoices for the relevant period were enclosed. These invoices do bear the endorsement as recorded in para 2, herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and is preceded by the word "is" would positively indicate that there has to be a term of contract. The basic idea being that the packing was to be returned and cost of packing would not form part of sale price and cannot, therefore, be included. It is not the physical capability of packing to be returned which is the determining factor. The packing must be returnable by the buyer and that must be under an arrangement between the buyer and the assessee. 6. While interpreting a contract, Courts were just as strict about the written words used in the deeds as they were interpreting a Statute or a Will. They had refused to look at external aids and went by grammatical meanings, no gaps were required to be filled. This, earlier view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntaining detergents, the Assistant Commissioner has made a very valid and pertinent observation that there is not even a single instance where the appellant has reused the said HDPE bags for repacking. No doubt the Appellant has shown some invoice which shows that the cost of the bag will be refunded if returned, no doubt the Indian Institute of Packaging has certified that the HDPE bags can be reused for 2 to 6 times. But the nature of durable and returnable packing should also be established by practice of receiving back and reused. But the law does not stipulate that in all the cases it should be returned. At the same time, the benefit of exemption also cannot be extended merely because he has made a mention that the packing cost would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of K. Radha Krishnaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise, Gooty, reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.), in that there was an indication on the sales invoices that the HDPE sacks in which the goods were packed were returnable by the buyer. He urged that this constituted an "arrangement" for the return of the packing, which sufficed to characterize it as durable and returnable packing in terms of the wording of Section 4. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 727 (SC) in the same context. The SDR for Revenue drew our attention to the recent decision of CEGAT, WRB, in the case of Ion Exchange Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, reported in 2003 (57) RLT 330, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
