The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polychem Limited

The Collector of Central Excise vs Polychem Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 27, 1988

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4540

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/4540
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R T K.L., H Chander, P a K.
Decided On: Jul 27, 1988
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Polychem Limited

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(21)LC21Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the respondents manufactured vinyl acetate monomer. they supplied it to their customers in road takners and drums/barrels both the road tankers and drums/barrels belonged to the customers and the respondents incurred no expenditure in respect thereof. the department admits that the containers were durably and were returnable to the customers. at the same time, the department seeks to deny exclusion of the cost of the containers in the assessable value of the goods on the ground that section 4(4)(d)(i) provides for the cost of durable packing which is returnable by the buyer to the assessee and not vice-versa. this is the only point agitated in the two appeals of the department.2. during the hearing today, the ld. representative of the department was fair enough to state that there were a series of high court judgements and the judgment of this tribunal which were against the department on the point at issue. as an illustration, he cited paragraph 19 of the larger bench judgement of this tribunal reported at associated cement company and ors. he also cited that the deptt. had taken the point in appeal before the hon'ble supreme court and hence the present appeals.3. the respondents cited a series of judgements of this tribunal in other cases in which it had been held, on the authority of the high court judgments mentioned therein, that the cost of durable and returnable packing belonging to the customer could not be included in the assessable value of the goods. the respondents also cited that they had not claimed any further relief in the two cross objections filed by them and hence the cross objections were unnecessary.4. following the ratio of paragraph 19 of the larger bench judgment of this tribunal referred to by the ld. representative of the deptt., we dismiss both appeals of the department. the two cross objections filed by the respondents are dismissed as infructuous.

Full Judgment

1. The Respondents manufactured Vinyl Acetate Monomer. They supplied it to their customers in road takners and drums/barrels Both the road tankers and drums/barrels belonged to the customers and the Respondents incurred no expenditure in respect thereof. The department admits that the containers were durably and were returnable to the customers. At the same time, the department seeks to deny exclusion of the cost of the containers in the assessable value of the goods on the ground that Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides for the cost of durable packing which is returnable by the buyer to the assessee and not vice-versa. This is the only point agitated in the two appeals of the department.

2. During the hearing today, the Ld. Representative of the department was fair enough to state that there were a series of High Court judgements and the judgment of this Tribunal which were against the department on the point at issue. As an illustration, he cited paragraph 19 of the larger Bench judgement of this Tribunal reported at Associated Cement Company and Ors. He also cited that the deptt. had taken the point in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the present appeals.

3. The Respondents cited a series of judgements of this Tribunal in other cases in which it had been held, on the authority of the High Court judgments mentioned therein, that the cost of durable and returnable packing belonging to the customer could not be included in the assessable value of the goods. The Respondents also cited that they had not claimed any further relief in the two Cross Objections filed by them and hence the Cross Objections were unnecessary.

4. Following the ratio of paragraph 19 of the larger Bench judgment of this Tribunal referred to by the Ld. Representative of the deptt., we dismiss both appeals of the department. The two Cross Objections filed by the Respondents are dismissed as infructuous.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties The Collector of Central Excise vs Polychem Limited Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R T K.L., H Chander, P a K.