Bombay Tubes and Containers Vs. Cce

Bombay Tubes and Containers vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 20, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12919

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/12919
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Feb 20, 1998
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bombay Tubes and Containers

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. the appellant is absent in spite of notice. there is no representation. we have heard shri m. ali, jdr and perused the papers.2. the dispute in this appeal relates to demand raised on element of cost of corrugated boxes in which the manufactured products, namely, aluminium collapsible tubes were packed at the time of clearance. the dispute relates to the period from july, 1983 to december, 1983. show cause notice dated 24.10.1985 alleged that 61,612 corrugated boxes had not been returned by the buyers and, therefore, appellant was liable to pay duty on the element of cost of these boxes. after considering the defence raised by the assessee, the additional collector confirmed the demand only in regard to duty based on the cost of 8267 boxes. he also imposed penalty of rs. 5000.00.3. there is no dispute that the corrugated boxes in question were durable and returnable. it is also not in dispute that a very substantial portion of the boxes had actually been returned in accordance with the trade practice or agreement between the parties. in those circumstances, the cost of corrugated boxes cannot be included in the assessable value and the question of paying duty on the number of boxes which were actually not returned would not arise. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant is absent in spite of notice. There is no representation. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.

2. The dispute in this appeal relates to demand raised on element of cost of corrugated boxes in which the manufactured products, namely, aluminium collapsible tubes were packed at the time of clearance. The dispute relates to the period from July, 1983 to December, 1983. Show cause notice dated 24.10.1985 alleged that 61,612 corrugated boxes had not been returned by the buyers and, therefore, appellant was liable to pay duty on the element of cost of these boxes. After considering the defence raised by the assessee, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand only in regard to duty based on the cost of 8267 boxes. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000.00.

3. There is no dispute that the corrugated boxes in question were durable and returnable. It is also not in dispute that a very substantial portion of the boxes had actually been returned in accordance with the trade practice or agreement between the parties. In those circumstances, the cost of corrugated boxes cannot be included in the assessable value and the question of paying duty on the number of boxes which were actually not returned would not arise. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Bombay Tubes and Containers vs Cce Same Subject MRTP Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.