Packing cost excluded from assessable value for unpacked goods; revisional authority cannot grant refund beyond the appealed period.

Where goods are capable of being sold in unpacked condition, packing cost is not includible in the assessable value, and refund follows on that basis. An earlier departmental view on the same product had already treated the wholesale cash price in unpacked condition as the proper basis of assessment, supporting exclusion of packing charges. A revisional authority, however, cannot examine a suo motu refund claim for a period beyond the subject matter of the order-in-appeal under challenge, so relief for that extra period is not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in assessing the value of calcined petroleum coke capable of being sold in unpacked condition, the cost of packing was includible in the assessable value and the refund claims were liable to be allowed; (ii) whether the claim for suo motu refund for the period not covered by the impugned order-in-appeal could be examined in revision.

Issue (i): Whether, in assessing the value of calcined petroleum coke capable of being sold in unpacked condition, the cost of packing was includible in the assessable value and the refund claims were liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The goods were held to be capable of being sold in unpacked condition, and an earlier departmental view on an identical issue had already accepted that the wholesale cash price of the product in unpacked condition should form the basis of assessment. On that footing, packing cost could not be added to the assessable value.

Conclusion: The inclusion of packing charges in assessable value was rejected and consequential refund was directed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for suo motu refund for the period not covered by the impugned order-in-appeal could be examined in revision.

Analysis: The additional refund claim related to a period beyond the order-in-appeal under challenge, and therefore did not arise from the subject matter properly before the revisional authority.

Conclusion: The claim for the additional period was not entertained and was dismissed as beyond the scope of revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded on the assessability of packing charges and consequential refund, but failed insofar as the extra-period refund claim was concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are capable of being sold in unpacked condition, packing cost is not includible in assessable value; a revisional authority cannot travel beyond the order-in-appeal to grant relief for an unconnected period.

---