Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Pragati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. on 5 November, 2003
ORDER owri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware. In the price list that it filed for this product it claimed deduction from the assessee of the cost of so much of the packing as has been supplied free to its customer with the product. Notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny this deduction on the ground that evidence of free supply of such packing had not been produced. The proceedings finally resulted in the order passed on 18.2.1994 by the Commissioner (Appeals). In that order, the Commissioner said that the assessee was entitled, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Polyware v. CCE 1989 (43) ELT 165 to deduction of the cost of so much of the packing that was supplied free by the assessee. He did not accept the contention of the assessee that the cost of packing is not incurred by it and is not required to furnish material to show packing had been received free of cost by the buyers and directed the Asst. Commissioner to verify information that the assessee may submit to permit deduction to cost of so much of the packing as was shown to him supplied to the customer free of cost.
2. The Asst. Commissioner passed orders after considering the material that the assessee furnished to him. He concluded that the assessee had not established received by it of any amount of packing supplied free of cost by the buyer. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders allowing the appeal and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. It is this order that is in appeal before us by the Commissioner.
3. The only reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) furnishes for setting aside the Commissioner's order and accepting the assessee's claim is contained in the second last paragraph of the order. "It is also observed that the assessee has furnished necessary information and documents in respect of packing supplied by the customer free of cost during the adjudicating proceedings vide their letter dated 18.8.94. Thus there is sufficient compliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) as given by him in his order in appeal dated 14.2.1994, by the appellant."
4. The Asst. Commissioner had passed a clear order furnishing details as to why he could not accept the figures furnished by the assessee. He had noticed that in the absence of any stock register the assessee could not identify the quantity of cartons claimed to have been supplied free of cost. If the Commissioner found this reasoning unsatisfactory he should have said why it was not acceptable. His order is entirely silent as to why the assessee's claim should be accepted and the Asst. Commissioner's order should be set aside.
5. In this situation, we have no alternative but to set it aside as non-speaking order and remand it to him for passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law.
6. The appeal accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.