TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Tribunal within the statutory time-limit of three months on 16-6-1989. According to the prevailing practice in this Tribunal, the appellants filed a supplementary appeal which has been assigned Appeal No. E/2547/89-A. As this supplementary appeal was not filed within the statutory time-limit of three months, they have filed a COD application as indicated above. After hearing both the parties before us, we have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeal and have allowed the COD application. 2. Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,92,366.59 was demanded from the appellants. This demand related to the Central Excise duty on the value of packing materials supplied by the appellants' customers free of cost. In the stay applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee and hence the cost of the same should be included in the assessable value. We have heard the arguments of both sides on the stay application. The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment relied on by the learned DR is not applicable to the present case since the packing materials were supplied by the customers to the assessees (the appellants herein) without any charge. The appellants did not supply the packing materials and hence there is no question of including the cost thereof in the assessable value of the excisable goods. In the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (supra) which has been relied on by the learned Advocate, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the cost of cartons or packing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants. In price list No. 175/85, in columns 6 & 7 thereof, the appellants mentioned that the cartons would be supplied by the customers free of charge. This price list was finally approved. In price list No. 192/86 also the appellants declared that the cartons would be supplied by the customers free of cost and this price list was also approved without any modification. Three show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 27-6-1986, proposing to recover Central Excise duty on the cost of packing materials (cartons) supplied by the customers free of charge. On 15-10-1986, the Assistant Collector gave a personal hearing to the appellants, but no order has been passed by him so far. On 22-8-1986, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), she has argued that the cost of the cartons should not be included in the assessable value. Further, she has argued that all the demands are time-barred. There was no suppression of facts by the appellants. The Range Inspector's office is situated in the factory premises of the appellants and the Central Excise Officer posted therein was aware of the cartons. Moreover, the purchase orders enclosed to the price lists mentioned that card board cartons were supplied by the customers free of cost. She has also argued that the appellants mentioned before the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut that two proceedings relating to two price lists were pending....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble value of glass and glasswares cleared by the appellants. On the facts of these cases, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned DR is not applicable to the instant cases. The judgment of Calcutta High Court is also not applicable as the ratio given therein is that the cost of raw materials supplied by the customers should be includible in the assessable value of the excisable product. In the present case the dispute is regarding the value of the packing cartons supplied by the customers and not the raw materials. Hence, the judgment of Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the present cases. 7. The argument of the learned Advocate is that on merits the appellant's cases are fully covered in th....