TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Including Customer Artwork Costs in Packaging Value: Tribunal's Ruling on Central Excise Valuation Rules</h1> <h3>Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune</h3> Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - 2017 (354) E.L.T. 272 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Inclusion of design and development charges in the assessable value of packaging materials.2. Applicability of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 to charges for art work.3. Consideration of proportionate costs of drawings used in manufacturing process.4. Cum duty benefits to be extended to the appellants.5. Examination of limitation period and suppression of facts.Issue 1: Inclusion of design and development charges in the assessable valueThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing packaging materials, faced a demand for including the cost of design and development of art work in the assessable value of the materials. The department argued that the cost should be included as it was used on behalf of customers. The appellant contended that the charges should only be included from 01/07/2000, citing specific provisions in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal noted that the cost of art work provided by customers should be included in the assessable value for the entire period involved, relying on legal precedents.Issue 2: Applicability of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 to charges for art workThe appellant argued that only the charges from 01/07/2000 should be included, based on the introduction of specific provisions in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal, however, held that the cost of art work provided by customers should be included for the entire period, referring to legal precedents and the provisions of the Rules.Issue 3: Consideration of proportionate costs of drawings used in manufacturing processThe appellant highlighted discrepancies in the value of drawings and the number actually used in manufacturing. They argued that only the proportionate costs of drawings used should be considered for duty calculation. The Tribunal agreed that the proportionate cost of drawings used in manufacturing should be included in the assessable value, emphasizing the need for proper verification by the adjudicating authority.Issue 4: Cum duty benefits to be extended to the appellantsThe appellant claimed that cum duty benefits should be considered, citing legal judgments supporting this position. The Tribunal agreed that cum duty benefits should be extended to the appellants, criticizing the adjudicating authority for not granting this benefit.Issue 5: Examination of limitation period and suppression of factsThe appellant raised concerns about the limitation period and suppression of facts. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined whether there was suppression of facts, indicating a lack of proper consideration on the issue of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to verify facts and follow legal precedents on all issues.
TaxTMI 