Bulk fruit juice in non-unit containers falls under Tariff Item 68, and dealer dispenser hire charges are excluded from assessable value.

Bulk fruit juice cleared in carbouys without a stipulated quantity was treated as not packed in unit containers, so the product fell under Tariff Item 68 and qualified for exemption under Notification No. 55/75. The note also states that dispenser hire charges arranged by dealers for their own dispensing operations were not part of the manufacturer's sale price, had no connection with manufacture or marketability of the bulk juice, and were therefore not includible in assessable value. The overall effect described is that the duty demand and impugned order were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fruit juice cleared in bulk carbouys was classifiable under Tariff Item 1B or under Tariff Item 68 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75. (ii) Whether hire charges collected for dispensers could be included in the assessable value of the fruit juice.

Issue (i): Whether the fruit juice cleared in bulk carbouys was classifiable under Tariff Item 1B or under Tariff Item 68 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75.

Analysis: The bulk carbouys did not contain a stipulated quantity and therefore could not be treated as unit containers. On that basis, the product fell within Tariff Item 68. The notification granting full exemption to food products falling under Tariff Item 68 was applicable.

Conclusion: The fruit juice was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and was exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether hire charges collected for dispensers could be included in the assessable value of the fruit juice.

Analysis: The dispensers were equipment used by dealers for dispensing fruit juice to consumers. Their hire was an arrangement by the dealers and not part of the manufacturer's sale of fruit juice in bulk carbouys. Such rental was not connected with manufacture, sale price, or enhancement of marketability of the bulk product, and could not form part of the assessable value even if the product were otherwise dutiable.

Conclusion: The dispenser hire charges could not be included in the assessable value, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the impugned order were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, charges for equipment hired by dealers for their own dispensing operations are not includible in the assessable value of bulk goods sold by the manufacturer, and bulk containers without stipulated quantity are not unit containers for tariff classification purposes.

---