TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caps are not manufactured in the factory of the appellant but are being supplied by the customers of the appellant, the value of the caps will not form part of the assessable value of the tubes manufactured by the appellant. The Commissioner, therefore, will have to record a clear finding as to whether for the tubes cleared during the three relevant periods, the caps were supplied by the customers of the appellant free of cost and accordingly pass a fresh order. - 5043-5045 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2011 - A.K. PATNAIK, ANIL R. DAVE, JJ. ORDER These appeals are filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ), against the order dated 30th January, 2003 of the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e item at the factory gate, is the printed bottle. Applying the decision of this Court in J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal took the view that where the plastic caps are fitted to the tubes before removal from the appellant's factory, duty is to be paid on the total value of the tubes including the value of the plastic caps. Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the plastic caps, which are fitted to the tubes manufactured and removed from the appellant's factory, are not actually manufactured by the appellant in its factory and these are being supplied by Colgate to the appellant and are fitted to the tubes before removal of the same from the factory of the appellant. He relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities, in the very case of the appellant, for a subsequent period, the Tribunal has now taken a view that the caps, not being integral part of a toothpaste tube, cannot be included in the assessable value of the toothpaste tube removed by the appellant from the factory. He submitted that in its decision, for a later period, the Tribunal has distinguished the case of the appellant from the case in J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), saying that in that case printing on the bottles was integral to the bottles whereas in the case of the appellant, the cap was not integral to the tubes but was only an accessory. Ms. Aruna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that it is not clear from the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant fixes plastic caps to the tubes and in such cases the value of the tubes fixed with caps are also included in the assessable value of tubes, but in case such caps are supplied by the customers free of cost, such tubes are cleared without including the value of the caps in the assessable value of the tubes. The Commissioner has not recorded any clear finding as to whether for the tubes that were cleared by the appellant during the relevant periods in respect of which show cause notices were issued, the caps were supplied free of cost by the customers of the appellant and such caps were fitted to the tubes manufactured in the factory of the appellant. As we have already held, in respect of the tubes for which caps have been supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
