Exemption for packaging cost in assessable value requires prima facie proof of inclusion before complete pre-deposit waiver is granted.

For exemption of wrapping paper under Notification No. 217/86, the exemption depended on whether packaging cost was included in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no reliable prima facie evidence that the wrapper cost had been included, and the valuation material suggested the wrapping paper weight was excluded; complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not justified, though partial dispensation was allowed. On limitation and absence of suppression, the Tribunal noted that the method of arriving at notional weight had not been disclosed contemporaneously and prima facie supported invocation of the longer limitation period, so this plea also did not support full waiver.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had shown a prima facie case for complete dispensation of pre-deposit in respect of the duty and penalty demanded on wrapping paper cleared under Notification No. 217/86; (ii) whether the plea of limitation and absence of suppression justified waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had shown a prima facie case for complete dispensation of pre-deposit in respect of the duty and penalty demanded on wrapping paper cleared under Notification No. 217/86.

Analysis: The relevant condition under the exemption notification was whether the packaging material had its cost included in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The material placed before the Tribunal showed that the notional weight used for valuation excluded the weight of the wrapping paper, and no reliable evidence was produced to establish that the wrapper cost had in fact been included in the declared assessable value. On that basis, the Tribunal found the lower authority's view to be prima facie sustainable.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver of duty pre-deposit; partial dispensation alone was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation and absence of suppression justified waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the method adopted for arriving at the notional weight had not been disclosed contemporaneously to the Department, and the record did not show that the wrapper weight had been taken into account in the valuation documents. On that prima facie view, withholding of material information was inferred, supporting invocation of the longer limitation period for the purpose of the pre-deposit application.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation did not justify complete waiver of pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed only to a limited extent, with pre-deposit directed for the duty and a part of the penalty, while the remaining penalty amount was dispensed with pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption linked to inclusion of packaging cost in assessable value, a party must prima facie show that the wrapper cost was actually included in valuation; absent such disclosure and evidence, complete waiver of pre-deposit is not justified.

---