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>White Cement Packing Charges Included in Assessable Value Upheld by Judgment</h1> <h3>TRAVANCORE CEMENT LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> TRAVANCORE CEMENT LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 424 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether packing charges of white cement are includible in the assessable value.2. Whether the authorities confirmed the demand disregarding the directions of the High Court.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The primary issue in this case is whether the packing charges of white cement should be included in the assessable value. The white cement in question is marketed in bags purchased from the market, which have already incurred excise duty. The dispute arose when the Range Officer demanded excise duty, including packing charges. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand, which was later remanded by the Collector and then reconfirmed. The High Court of Kerala quashed the orders of the Collector and directed the Asstt. Collector to reconsider the matter. The Asstt. Collector, after considering the High Court's directions, confirmed the demand again. The appellants argued that the white cement could be sold without packing, as supported by the High Court's judgment. They contended that the burden of proof was on the department to establish that the cement required packing. The department, on the other hand, argued that the packing charges should be included, especially since the cement is always sold in a packed condition. The Asstt. Collector found that white cement can only be sold with packing, considering various factors such as industry practice and the nature of the product.Issue 2: The second issue pertains to whether the authorities disregarded the directions of the High Court in confirming the demand. The appellants argued that the High Court's judgment was binding on the parties, and the authorities should have followed its directions. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the High Court's decision should be adhered to. However, the department contended that the High Court did not explicitly rule on whether packing charges should be included. They also cited the decision in Bombay Tyre International to support their position that packing should be included in the assessable value unless proven otherwise. The Asstt. Collector's findings that white cement can only be sold with packing were considered reasonable, and the demand was upheld based on this conclusion.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of white cement based on the Supreme Court decision in Bombay Tyre International. The Asstt. Collector's findings were deemed appropriate, and the demand was confirmed in line with industry practices and the nature of the product. The argument that the authorities disregarded the High Court's directions was rejected, as the Asstt. Collector had considered all relevant aspects before reaching a decision.
TaxTMI 