Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. vs Cce on 22 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(105)ECR643(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Sheet glass. A duty demand of over Rs. 28 lakh have been confirmed against them on the ground that the appellants should have paid Central Excise Duty on a value inclusive of the cost of wooden packing in which the glass sheets are supplied.
2. The appellants submission is that wooden boxes/crates are secondary packing used only in the interest of protection during transport. Normal packing of the goods is only in paper & crates etc. Appellants have also submitted that a portion of the goods (11%) are actually sold at factory gate without packing in wooden boxes/crates. Thus, showing that wooden packing is optional and not the normal packing. They have also pointed out that the Commissioner was in error in assuming that the appellants were availing of modvat credit in respect of wooden packing and for that reason their value of wooden packing is required to be included in the assessable value. They have also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad 1998 (74) ECR 863 (Tribunal).
3. The learned SDR has submitted that the packing in which goods are delivered should be treated as normal packing and their cost should be included in the assessable value. It is also submitted that with regard to valuation of assessable goods what is relevant is the price of the goods including their packing. It is of no relevance as to whether the goods are in primary packing or secondary packing. The records show that the appellants were selling part of the sheet glass in question without wooden packing. Their contention is that wooden packing is required only for safety during transport. It is not a requirement for sale at factory gate. The sale about of 11% of the sheet glass at factory gate confirms this position. The impugned order was based on an assumption that the appellants were availing modvat credit in respect of the wooden boxes. This assumption is now found to be without factual basis.
5. It is clear that the wooden boxes/crates is not the normal packing of the sheet glass manufactured by the appellant. Such packing is used only for safety of transport. The cost of such additional packing is not required to be included in the assessable value. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.