9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to July '96], they had cleared their products in this manner to different buyers, on payment of duty on the goods on an assessable value not including the cost of the packing material. In other words, they claimed abatement of the cost of packing material in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, from the invoiced price of the goods, while paying duty thereon. That was on the ground that the packing materials were durable and returnable by the buyer. The assessments were provisional. The original authority finalized the assessments by disallowing the above abatements and raised consequential demand of differential duty on the assessee. The assessče, aggrieved by the decision of the said authority, preferred appeal to the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is shown that there was an arrangement between the seller and the buyer that the packing material would be returned by the latter, the material would be considered to be durable and returnable for purposes of above provision and, in that factual situation, the cost of the material would be liable to be deducted from the invoiced. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that, in the present case, there is no dispute regarding the durability of the paper tubes. It is also not in dispute that the relevant invoices expressly indicated that the paper tubes were returnable. It is contended that this declaration made by the assessee in the invoices reflected the arrangement between them and the buyer, which was that the packing material would be returned b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seller and the buyer was for return of the material by the buyer, the cost of the material would be excluded from the assessable value of the excisable goods under Section 4(4)(d)(i), whether or not there was actual return of the packing material. This position was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Triveni Glass Ltd. (supra) also. The view taken by the court in Tata Chemicals (supra) cited by ld JCDR is no different. We note that, in the case of Tata Chemicals (supra), the three-Judge Bench of the court dissented with the view taken on a certain point by a coordinate Bench earlier in the case of Triveni Glass (supra). But this aspect will have no impact on the present case. 6. However, we would like to state that the reason for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
