Tribunal excludes mould costs, considers packing charges in glass bottle assessable value. Collector to decide.

The Tribunal held that the cost of moulds need not be included in the assessable value of glass bottles as the customers bore the cost. However, it directed the Collector to consider including packing charges in the assessable value, given the necessity of some level of packing for glass bottles due to their breakable nature. The respondent was given time to provide evidence on packing costs for the Collector to make a decision. The appeal was partially allowed, instructing the Collector to decide on packing charges based on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues involved: Assessment of duty on cost of moulds and packing charges in the assessable value of glass bottles.

Assessment of duty on cost of moulds:
The appellant, a manufacturer of glass bottles, recovered the cost of moulds from customers through debit notes. The Collector distinguished between situations where the cost was passed on and where it was not. The department argued that the moulds were essential for bottle manufacturing, akin to machinery, and their cost should be included. However, as the cost of developing the moulds was borne by the customers, there was no commercial requirement to include them in the assessable value. The Tribunal found no support in the Supreme Court's judgment for the department's case and upheld that the cost of moulds need not be included.

Assessment of duty on packing charges:
The Collector contended that packing was not essential for glass bottles as they are marketable without any packing. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that some level of packing is necessary due to the breakable nature of glass bottles. The Tribunal found it reasonable to conclude that packing costs essential for marketing should be included in the assessable value. As there was no clear evidence on the type or cost of packing, the respondent was given two months to provide material for the Collector to make a decision. The appeal was allowed in part, with the Collector instructed to make a decision based on the evidence presented.

---