2011 (11) TMI 26 - SC - Central Excise

Court overturns Tribunal, remands for new decision. Caps not integral if separate from tubes. Clarity on customer supply crucial.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Court emphasized that ... Supply of caps along with tubes - Penalty under Rule 173-Q and Section 11-AB of the Act - The appellant manufactured plastic tubes in its factory and supplied the same to M/s Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd - caps are manufactured separately and not in the same factory in which the tubes are being manufactured - Heldd that:- if the caps are manufactured separately and not in the same factory in which the tubes are being manufactured, the caps cannot form integral part of the assessable value of the tubes, manufactured and cleared from the factory. - If in the present case, the caps are not manufactured in the factory of the appellant but are being supplied by the customers of the appellant, the value of the caps will not form part of the assessable value of the tubes manufactured by the appellant.The Commissioner, therefore, will have to record a clear finding as to whether for the tubes cleared during the three relevant periods, the caps were supplied by the customers of the appellant free of cost and accordingly pass a fresh order. Issues:- Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding excise duty on plastic tubes with caps- Inclusion of plastic caps in assessable value of tubes manufactured and cleared from factory- Interpretation of whether caps are integral part of tubes for excise duty calculationAnalysis:The appeal in this case was filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act against the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the inclusion of plastic caps in the assessable value of plastic tubes manufactured and supplied by the appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of excise duty and imposed a penalty, stating that the plastic caps were not included in the assessable value of the tubes. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, citing a previous decision related to the concept of 'manufacture' under the Act. The appellant argued that the caps were not manufactured in their factory but supplied by another entity, relying on previous tribunal decisions and court rulings.The appellant's counsel contended that the plastic caps were not integral to the tubes and should not be included in the assessable value based on precedents where separate components were treated distinctly for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal, in a subsequent decision, distinguished the case from previous judgments, emphasizing the accessory nature of the caps. The respondent's counsel raised concerns about the origin of the caps and the lack of clarity on whether they were manufactured in the appellant's factory or supplied by a third party.Upon review, the Court reiterated the principle that if caps are manufactured separately from the tubes, they should not be considered an integral part of the assessable value. The Court emphasized the importance of clear findings regarding the supply of caps by customers and directed the Commissioner to ascertain whether caps were provided free of cost and fitted to the tubes during the relevant periods. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in line with the Court's observations.