Full Judgment
2. The respondents assessees were selling certain chemicals in glass bottles which were returnable by buyers and were reused by the assessees. Against breakage of such glass bottles, the assessees used to collect security deposit which was forfeited in case the buyers broke any bottles. The Collector himself had observed that this situation arose only once in 3 years. The Asstt. Collector after issue of show cause notice confirmed the demand of Rs. 4346.05 on adding the value of such security deposits to the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the value of returnable and durable containers could not be added to the assessable value and set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence, the appeal from the Revenue.
3. The single point made in the appeal memorandum and argued by Shri Deepak Kumar was that the containers could not be called durable and returnable. We find little value in this argument. It has been held by the Tribunal in a number of judgment that in interpreting the provisions, what is to be taken into account is the capacity of the containers to be returned and not the fact of actual return. We observe further that the security deposit would enable the assessee to replace the broken bottles. Since the cost of the bottles is not the basis for computing the assessable value, the collection of security deposit and replacement of broken bottles after forfeiture of the deposit would not relate to the activity of manufacture of excisable goods by the assessee. We upheld the order of the Collector and dismiss the appeal.