India Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

India Containers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 11, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38082

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/38082
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, A M Moheb
Decided On: Feb 11, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

India Containers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(191)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....out of the order of commissioner (appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority demanding a sum of rs. 51,63,623/- towards the differential duty payable on the revised value arrived at for the metal containers manufactured and cleared by the applicant during the period july 1998 to january 2001. the commissioner also confirmed penalty of rs. 10 lakhs.2. the issue involved is whether the value of the caps of the metal containers should be considered as a part of the container in which case the value of such part will have to be added to the value of the container for the purpose of assessssment or whether such caps should be considered as accessories of the container, in which case its value cannot be added. the second issue involved is as to the correct value of the cap. the lower authorities took the value of 50 paise per caps whereas the applicant claims it should be paise 1.8 per piece cap.4. the ld. advocate appearing for the applicant argued that the issue whether cap is an accessory of a container or not is covered by the several decisions of the tribunal in esse l packaging ltd. v.commissioner of central excise mumbai [2004 (174) elt 265] the tribunal held that caps of toothpaste tubes are accessories. in the case of shalimar tubes & industries ltd. v. union of india [1994 (74) elt 520 (bom.), the hon'ble bombay high court held that the value of plastic caps are not to be included in the assessable value of extruded aluminium tubes. the ld. advocate argued that even though these decisions pertains to tubes and not to metal containers: the ratio of these decisions applies to the present case in regard to the value of the caps arrived at by the department. he argued there was absolutely no basis for determining the value of each cap at rs. 50 piece.5. we observe that the issue whether a cap of a container/tube is an accessory or not is debatable in the light of the decisions cited. we, hold that the appellant has made out.....

Full Judgment

1. The stay application arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority demanding a sum of Rs. 51,63,623/- towards the differential duty payable on the revised value arrived at for the metal containers manufactured and cleared by the applicant during the period July 1998 to January 2001. The Commissioner also confirmed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.

2. The issue involved is whether the value of the Caps of the Metal Containers should be considered as a part of the container in which case the value of such part will have to be added to the value of the container for the purpose of assessssment or whether such caps should be considered as accessories of the container, in which case its value cannot be added. The second issue involved is as to the correct value of the cap. The lower authorities took the value of 50 paise per caps whereas the applicant claims it should be paise 1.8 per piece cap.

4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant argued that the issue whether cap is an accessory of a container or not is covered by the several decisions of the Tribunal in Esse l Packaging Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai [2004 (174) ELT 265] the Tribunal held that caps of Toothpaste tubes are accessories. In the case of Shalimar Tubes & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1994 (74) ELT 520 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the value of plastic caps are not to be included in the assessable value of extruded aluminium tubes. The Ld. Advocate argued that even though these decisions pertains to tubes and not to Metal Containers: the ratio of these decisions applies to the present case in regard to the value of the caps arrived at by the department. He argued there was absolutely no basis for determining the value of each cap at Rs. 50 piece.

5. We observe that the issue whether a cap of a container/tube is an accessory or not is debatable in the light of the decisions cited. We, hold that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case in his favour to justify waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The various issues whether a container can be said to be so even without a cap can be gone into when the appeal is taken up for disposal.

Pre-deposit of duty and penalty waived and recovery thereof stayed during the currency of this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties India Containers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP Same Judge K Kumar, A M Moheb

MRTP prima facie case prima facie high court in esse