Gurind India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the issue relates to assessable value for glass sheet (glass panels). arguing the appeal, the ld. counsel shri naveen mullik, submits that in the normal course these goods are delivered at the factory gate without any packing. he also points out that even the show cause notice and the impugned order have admitted that more than 64% of the goods are removed without any packing. he submits that the remaining goods are cleared after packing, including wooden packing, to ensure safety during long distance transport at the specific request from the buyers. he submits that such packings are special packings and are not liable to be included in the assessable value. he further submits that the revenue has sought to include the value of the special packing on the basis that where the goods are cleared without packing, these are special arrangements made in the trucks for the purpose of ensuring that goods do not break during transport. shri naveen mullik submits that this has no relevance for including the cost of special packing in the assessable value. he submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the supreme court reported in 1996 (87) e.l.t. 335 (s.c.), wherein the supreme court held that the cost of special wooden packing for transportation of goods is not liable to be included in the assessable value.2. shri naveen mullik, also submitted that the grounds made out in the impugned order are different from the grounds taken in the show cause notice and submitted that such deviation from the scope of the show cause notice is not permissible. he submitted that the show cause notice proceeded on the basis that the party did not submit actual expenses incurred on special packing and that is the reason for not allowing deduction. unlike the impugned order, the notice did not at all hold that the deduction is not admissible in law.3. heard shri s.p. rao, ld. jdr for the revenue. he submitted that the transportation of glass items would require packing and therefore the revenue authorities were correct in holding that the value of packing is not to be deducted while fixing the assessable value.4. we have perused the records and have considered the rival contentions. we find that in terms of section 4(4)(d)(i), "value" in relation to excisable goods is to include the cost of packing only "where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition". it is observed from the records that more than 64% of the goods are delivered at the factory gate without any packing. thus, it is not in dispute in the instant case that goods are removed without packing. therefore, there should be no legal requirement for including the cost of packing in the assessable value.the deduction sought by the appellant is with regard to the wooden and other packing carried out for the purpose of protection during transport, the goods themselves being normally delivered without packing. in the circumstances, we hold that the appellant's claim for deduction of cost of packing is correct.the appeal is, accordingly, allowed with consequential relief to the appellants and the impugned order is set aside.

Judgment:
1. The issue relates to assessable value for glass sheet (Glass panels). Arguing the appeal, the ld. Counsel Shri Naveen Mullik, submits that in the normal course these goods are delivered at the factory gate without any packing. He also points out that even the show cause notice and the impugned order have admitted that more than 64% of the goods are removed without any packing. He submits that the remaining goods are cleared after packing, including wooden packing, to ensure safety during long distance transport at the specific request from the buyers. He submits that such packings are special packings and are not liable to be included in the assessable value. He further submits that the revenue has sought to include the value of the special packing on the basis that where the goods are cleared without packing, these are special arrangements made in the trucks for the purpose of ensuring that goods do not break during transport. Shri Naveen Mullik submits that this has no relevance for including the cost of special packing in the assessable value. He submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 335 (S.C.), wherein the Supreme Court held that the cost of special wooden packing for transportation of goods is not liable to be included in the assessable value.

2. Shri Naveen Mullik, also submitted that the grounds made out in the impugned order are different from the grounds taken in the show cause notice and submitted that such deviation from the scope of the show cause notice is not permissible. He submitted that the show cause notice proceeded on the basis that the party did not submit actual expenses incurred on special packing and that is the reason for not allowing deduction. Unlike the impugned order, the notice did not at all hold that the deduction is not admissible in law.

3. Heard Shri S.P. Rao, ld. JDR for the revenue. He submitted that the transportation of glass items would require packing and therefore the revenue authorities were correct in holding that the value of packing is not to be deducted while fixing the assessable value.

4. We have perused the records and have considered the rival contentions. We find that in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i), "value" in relation to excisable goods is to include the cost of packing only "where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition". It is observed from the records that more than 64% of the goods are delivered at the factory gate without any packing. Thus, it is not in dispute in the instant case that goods are removed without packing. Therefore, there should be no legal requirement for including the cost of packing in the assessable value.The deduction sought by the appellant is with regard to the wooden and other packing carried out for the purpose of protection during transport, the goods themselves being normally delivered without packing. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellant's claim for deduction of cost of packing is correct.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with consequential relief to the appellants and the impugned order is set aside.