Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.59 seconds)Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 26 July, 1988
11. Hence, in these circumstances the appellant is
bound to include the cost of the gunny bags that are
provided by it in the overall value of the soda ash
as per the provisions of the Act. Reliance has been
placed in the case of Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P)
Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra), wherein
this Court has held thus:
K. Radha Krishnaiah vs Inspector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 4 November, 1986
In K. Radha
Krishnaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise
this Court observed that it cannot be said
that the packing is returnable by the buyer
to the assessee unless there is an
arrangement between them that it shall be
returned. Therefore, such arrangement has
been established. Actual return or extent
of return is not relevant. What is
necessary is that if the buyer chooses to
return the packing, the seller should be
obliged to accept it and refund the
stipulated amount. In this case after
examining the facts, the Tribunal found
that there was no clause about
returnability of the cartons and gunny
bags. The appellant invited the attention
of the Tribunal to the following clause in
their standard contract. It read as
follows:
Triveni Glass Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2005
2. My learned brother Judge has also referred to
the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of
Central Excise7, Triveni Glass Ltd. v. Union of
India8 and CCE v. Hindustan National Glass &
Industries Ltd.9 and K. Radha Krishnaiah v. Inspector
of Central Excise10 in support of his decision that
the letters dated 15.12.1970, 01.02.1971 and
02.04.1971 and the credit notes dated 12.3.1988 and
31.3.1988, spell out an arrangement between the
assessee and the buyers. He has further opined that
once the existence of an arrangement is established
and there is a choice on the buyer to return the
packing material for reuse, then the cost of packing
shall not be included. He has further held that if
the assessee succeeds in establishing the choice
mentioned in the documents which this Court has
accepted to be an arrangement and the same is
prevalent during the relevant period of time,
i.e.1981 to 1985, the appellant shall be given the
7 (1988) Supp SCC 601
8 (2005) 3 SCC 484
9 (2005) 3 SCC 489
10 (1987) 2 SCC 457
28
benefit. My learned brother after arriving at the
abovementioned conclusion has remanded the matter to
the adjudicating authority for adjudication in
accordance with the principles laid down by this
Court.
Cce vs Hindusthan National Glass And ... on 11 August, 2004
8. The test for the determination of inclusion or
exclusion of the value of the gunny bags from the
overall value of the soda ash can be ascertained on
the basis of whether such packing is necessary for
putting the excisable article in the condition in
which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at
the factory gate as held by this Court in the case of
CCE v. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.,
(supra), which reads thus:
Hindustan Polymers Etc. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc. Etc on 23 August, 1989
In Hindustan Polymers (supra), it has been clearly held
that when an arrangement per se exists for return of durable
packaging by the buyer to the manufacturer, then whether or
not the packaging was in fact returned would be
inconsequential. More importantly, it was held therein that if
the durable packaging was supplied by the buyer to the
assessee and was returnable to the buyer, the cost of durable
packaging would not form a part of the assessable value. To
treat value of the durable supplied by the buyer as a part of the
assessable value, it was observed, would result in an absurd
situation. In this context, it was held that proper contextual
interpretation was required to be placed on the words of Section
4(4)(d)(i), as literal interpretation would lead to difficulties. The
letter dated 2nd April, 1971 in this context is relevant.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Hindustan National Glass And ... on 11 March, 2005
The present batch of appeals relates to the period 1981-1985.
It is apt to note here that when the batch of appeals was listed
1 (1989) 4 SCC 323
5
before a three-Judge Bench, it referred to Section 4(4)(d) of the
Act and letters issued by the appellant; took note of the
decisions in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector
of Central Excise2, Triveni Glass Ltd. v. Union of India &
Ors.3 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hindustan
National Glass & Industries Ltd.4; adverted to the order of
the tribunal that has not accepted the documents holding that
it did not show that there was any arrangement regarding
returnability of gunny bags which would justify the exclusion of
cost of gunny bags from the cost of soda ash; analysed the
proposition of law stated in K. Radha Krishnaiah v.
Inspector of Central Excise and others5 and opined thus:-
Govt. Of India And Ors. Etc vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Etc on 3 May, 1995
In Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber
Factory Ltd. it was, inter alia, held as
follows:
Triveni Glass Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 February, 2005
It is held that, in view of the specific
term in the bills/invoices, the wooden crates are
durable and returnable packing whose cost is not to
be included in the value of glass sheets.”
The principle stated therein has been followed in Triveni
Glass Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur6.
1