Cce Vs. Radix Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Cce vs Radix Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 11, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38729

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/38729
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Apr 11, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Radix Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pet bottles and caps handles falling under central excise tariff sub-heading 3923.90. they were supplying pet bottles manufactured by them packed in corrugated boxes (hereinafter referred to as cartons) either supplied free of cost by their suppliers, or according to the specification of the buyers, they supplied carton duly packed with finished goods and charged cost of such cartons separately from the buyers. they were including the cost of packing material i.e.cartons in the assessable value of their final product in terms of section 4 of the central excise act, 1944. since the cartons supplied by the respondents were not durable and returnable in nature, the department was of the view that their cost should have been included in arriving at the assessable value of excisable goods for the purpose of discharging excise duty. show cause notice dated 19.2.2003 proposing recovery of rs. 12,45,376 for the period april 1998 to june 2001, and proposing imposition of penalty was issued; the notice was adjudicated by the additional commissioner who confirmed the demand raised in the notice together with interest and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty; the commissioner (appeals) rejected the contention of the assessees/respondents that they were not liable to include cost of packing material supplied by them in the assessable value of their final product; however, he set aside the demand on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation as the assessees had filed a declaration under rule 173c of the central excise rules on 22.12.98 in which they had clearly stated that they were not including the cost of packing supplied by them in accordance with the customers' specification, in the assessable value of pet bottles and cap handles manufactured by them. hence this appeal by the revenue.2. we have heard both sides. from the above declaration, it is clear that the assessees had.....

Full Judgment

1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PET bottles and caps handles falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3923.90. They were supplying PET bottles manufactured by them packed in corrugated boxes (hereinafter referred to as cartons) either supplied free of cost by their suppliers, or according to the specification of the buyers, they supplied carton duly packed with finished goods and charged cost of such cartons separately from the buyers. They were including the cost of packing material i.e.

cartons in the assessable value of their final product in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the cartons supplied by the respondents were not durable and returnable in nature, the department was of the view that their cost should have been included in arriving at the assessable value of excisable goods for the purpose of discharging excise duty. Show cause notice dated 19.2.2003 proposing recovery of Rs. 12,45,376 for the period April 1998 to June 2001, and proposing imposition of penalty was issued; the notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand raised in the notice together with interest and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty; the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessees/respondents that they were not liable to include cost of packing material supplied by them in the assessable value of their final product; however, he set aside the demand on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation as the assessees had filed a declaration under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules on 22.12.98 in which they had clearly stated that they were not including the cost of packing supplied by them in accordance with the customers' specification, in the assessable value of PET bottles and cap handles manufactured by them. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard both sides. From the above declaration, it is clear that the assessees had informed the department that they were sending the PET bottles etc. in the cartons supplied by them according to the customers' specifications but were not including the cost of such cartons in the assessable value of their final products. The department, therefore, had knowledge of the fact of non-inclusion of the cost of cartons in the assessable value of PET bottles etc. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate authority that the assessees cannot be held guilty of suppression with intention to evade payment of duty. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Radix Impex Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, N T C.N.B.