Buyer-supplied packing cost excluded from excise value; Chapter X lapse treated as procedural, not defeating exemption.

Buyer-supplied packing material was treated as outside the assessee's assessable value under central excise valuation, because only the cost incurred by the assessee formed part of value under Section 4(4)(d)(i). The cost of packing supplied by the buyer therefore was not includible, regardless of durability or returnability. Non-compliance with Chapter X procedure was held to be procedural and not, by itself, fatal to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The remand order was set aside and the non-inclusion of packing cost was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cost of packing material supplied by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee. (ii) Whether non-compliance with Chapter X procedure defeated the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and whether the durability or returnability of the packing altered the position.

Issue (i): Whether the cost of packing material supplied by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee.

Analysis: The applicable valuation principle was that only the cost incurred by the assessee formed part of the value under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Where packing material was supplied by the buyer, its cost did not form part of the assessee's cost. The earlier remand had proceeded on the footing that the buyer-supplier units were separate entities in excise law, and on that basis the packing supplied by the buyer could not be added to the assessable value.

Conclusion: The cost of packing supplied by the buyer was not includible in the assessable value, and the conclusion was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with Chapter X procedure defeated the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and whether the durability or returnability of the packing altered the position.

Analysis: The requirement of following Chapter X procedure was treated as procedural rather than substantive, and failure to comply with it did not, by itself, negate the exemption. The remand direction did not require a fresh inquiry into durability or returnability, and that aspect could not enlarge the scope of the departmental appeal. In any event, the same valuation principle governed buyer-supplied packing whether durable or not.

Conclusion: The procedural lapse did not disqualify the assessee from the benefit of the notification, and durability or returnability did not make the buyer-supplied packing includible.

Final Conclusion: The order of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, the adjudication in favour of non-inclusion of the packing cost was restored, and the assessee succeeded on the valuation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Cost of packing supplied by the buyer is not part of the assessable value under central excise valuation, and a procedural lapse in following Chapter X does not by itself defeat the exemption when the substantive conditions are satisfied.

---