Buyer-supplied packing material excluded from excise assessable value despite amended valuation provisions.

Buyer-supplied packing material is not includible in the assessable value for central excise valuation where the containers are provided by the customer and duty is paid on the manufactured goods price. The later amendment to Section 4 did not alter the settled principle applied by prior Supreme Court and Tribunal rulings. The relevant test remains whether the packing cost forms part of the value of the goods in the hands of the assessee; on the stated facts, the plastic container cost did not form part of that value and was excluded from assessable value.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cost of packing material supplied by the buyer is includible in the assessable value of the goods for central excise valuation purposes after the amendment to Section 4.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of glycol where customers supplied their own plastic containers and duty was paid only on the price of glycol. The appellate authority had proceeded on the view that the amended valuation provisions and the alleged flow back of money justified inclusion of the container cost. The Tribunal followed the settled line of authority that buyer-supplied packing material is not to be added to assessable value, and noted that the later amendment to Section 4 did not displace that principle. The governing test remained whether the packing cost formed part of the value of the manufactured goods in the hands of the assessee, and the prior Supreme Court and Tribunal rulings held that such cost is not includible where the containers are supplied by the buyer.

Conclusion: The cost of buyer-supplied plastic containers was not includible in the assessable value; the Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee succeeded.

---