TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made at the site of the customers; therefore, the appellant was maintaining a fleet of trucks with special type of rack bodies for the transportation of crates of Aerated waters. The local Central Excise staff directed the appellant to discharge the duty liability on the said Aerated waters produced and cleared by it on the basis of destination prices without deduction of equalised freight. The appellant filed a representation against it before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. That representation is reported to be still pending with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. 2.2. It is further stated that the Supreme Court of India in its judgment (December 1972) in the case of Voltas Ltd. [1977 (1) E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals on remand were registered in the office of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi as 59-60-CE/APPL/ DLH/85. The lower appellate authority apart from deciding the aforesaid two appeals also considered alongwith them an appeal against de novo order-in-original dated 16-4-1982 which was registered as appeal No. 303-CE/APPL/DLH/82. Thus the 3 appeals namely 59 & 60-CE/APPL/DLH/85 and 303-CE/APPL/DLH/82 were decided by the lower appellate authority resulting in the common impugned order 299 to 301-CE/DLH/86. 2.5. The lower appellate authority considered the claim of deduction of the following expenses and amounts from their destination prices in respect of Aerated Waters:- "(a) Selling cost and selling profit. (b) Transportation charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing expenses of empty bottles and crates at the factory gate. (iv) Transit breakage of empty bottles. (v) Incentive to salesmen and helpers for safe transportation of empty stocks. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the aforesaid expenses claimed as deduction from the destination prices are now clearly allowable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (SC)]. He also relies on the following judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of (1) Industrial Gases Bihar Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [1987 (29) E.L.T. 749 (Tribunal)] (2) CCE Indore v. Jabalpur Oxygen Co., Jabalpur. [1987 (30) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal)] and (3) M/s. Chinai Bottling Co. Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denied the benefit of deduction for the following reasons :- "........... that these expenses are reportedly incurred in connection with the 'return journey of the empty bottles from the customers premises, and some connected services. The empty bottles are put in the manufacturing steam of aerated water and to out again on their outward journey. They are like raw materials for the excisable goods viz. aerated water. And hence, these expenses are best treated with the Manufacturing cost, which means no deductions under these heads." 8. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd., mentioned supra, no doubt is left that collection expenses ....