Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

C.C.E. Vs. Vimal Detergent Cakes (P) Ltd.

C.C.E. vs Vimal Detergent Cakes (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 24, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10096

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E.

Respondent

Vimal Detergent Cakes (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(93)ELT179TriDel

Excerpt

1. respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. we have heard shri t.r. malik, sdr for the appellant -collector and perused the papers.2. respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of detergent cakes. the controversy relates to the includibility in the assessable value of the cost of secondary packing. the assistant collector held that the cost of secondary packing should be included but the collector (appeals) took a contrary view. hence the present appeal by the department.3. the admitted facts are that detergent cakes manufactured by the respondent are initially packed in polythene bags and several such polythene bags are packed in hdpe bags when delivered at the factory gate to buyers or while being sent to outstation customers. assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at the factory gate and regard must be had to the manner of packing necessary for delivery at the factory gate. it is difficult to accept that when large number of detergent cakes are being sold in bulk to wholesale buyers, only primary packing is used and secondary packing is not used. the records show that invariable the detergent cakes are packed in gunny bags or hdpe bags when delivered at the factory gate to the buyer. that being so, the secondary packing must be considered to be "necessary" as explained by the supreme court in m.r.f.'s case, 1995 (77) e.l.t. 433.hence the value of secondary packing has to be included in the assessable value of the goods.4. for reasons indicated above, the order passed by the collector (appeals) is set aside and the order passed by the assistant collector is restored.

Full Judgment

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR for the appellant -Collector and perused the papers.

2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of detergent cakes. The controversy relates to the includibility in the assessable value of the cost of secondary packing. The Assistant Collector held that the cost of secondary packing should be included but the Collector (Appeals) took a contrary view. Hence the present appeal by the Department.

3. The admitted facts are that detergent cakes manufactured by the respondent are initially packed in polythene bags and several such polythene bags are packed in HDPE bags when delivered at the factory gate to buyers or while being sent to outstation customers. Assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at the factory gate and regard must be had to the manner of packing necessary for delivery at the factory gate. It is difficult to accept that when large number of detergent cakes are being sold in bulk to wholesale buyers, only primary packing is used and secondary packing is not used. The records show that invariable the detergent cakes are packed in gunny bags or HDPE bags when delivered at the factory gate to the buyer. That being so, the secondary packing must be considered to be "necessary" as explained by the Supreme Court in M.R.F.'s case, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433.

Hence the value of secondary packing has to be included in the assessable value of the goods.

4. For reasons indicated above, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Collector is restored.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial