Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Popular Fine Arts Litho Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 1 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998ECR69(TRI.-DELHI), 1998(99)ELT124(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR.
2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of playing cards was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the approved prices. Five show cause notices were issued subsequently stating that over and above the approved prices, appellant was collecting various amounts towards clearing and forwarding charges, that these amounts should be included in the assessable value but were not and proposing demand of differential duty on these amounts. Appellant pointed out that goods cleared at the factory gate for local buyers were packed in corrugated boxes cost of which had been included in the declared price and wooden boxes with metal straps were used at the request of up-country buyers for the safety of the goods while in transit, the transit insurance was being arranged at the request of those buyers, that the extra amount also covered wages and salary for packing, forwarding and transportation charges! The Assistant Collector dropped the demand in regard to transit insurance and local freight charges but confirmed the demand in regard to the other elements. The Collector (Appeals) having confirmed this order the present appeal has been filed.
3. The normal packing for the playing cards is corrugated boxes. When orders are placed by up-country buyers, the corrugated boxes are packed in wooden boxes with metal strapings. In these circumstances, it is clear that wooden boxes and strappings cannot be regarded as necessary to be used for the purpose of wholesale trade at the factory gate and therefore, the cost thereof cannot be included in the assessable value. The cost incurred by way of wages and salary for sueh packing and for the purpose of safe transport subsequent packing cannot also be included. In this view, the impugned order is not sustainable and it is set aside. The appeal is allowed.