1996 (9) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el would be added to the assessable value of paper which is the excisable product. During the period in question, the price lists or gate passes did not show the price of the cores or reels. Under the invoices, over and above the price list price, the appellant was collecting separately the cost of paper core or wooden reel. When the excise officers compared the invoices with the gate passes, they allegedly came to know about the collection of the cost of cores or wooden reels over and above the price list price. Accordingly, 12 show cause notices were issued to the appellant to cover the entire period, requiring the appellant to show cause why differential duty should not be demanded on the value of paper core or reel on which paper cleare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of paper. This, of course, is subject to the exceptions engrafted in Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act). 3.  According to Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act, where goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, the value of the goods includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. This clause has received consideration at the hands of the Supreme Court in some decisions. In K. Radha Krishaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 598, Supreme Court held that what is required for the purpose of attracting the applicability of the exclusion clause in Section 4(4)(d)(i) i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut brushed aside the same on the ground that appellant did not produce evidence to establish the returnable nature of the packing and evidence indicating that those materials were actually returned to them by the customer. He also indicated that mere endorsement on the invoices or other documents would not establish durability and returnability. He also held that the endorsement indicated that it was optional for the buyers to return the packing materials and that would not be sufficient. This reasoning is contrary to what the Supreme Court held in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. case. 5.  There was an identical dispute between the Department and the appellant for an earlier period. The Assistant Collector held against the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....985 1-7-1984 to 31-7-1984 3.  23-2-1985 1-9-1984 to 30-9-1984 4.  23-2-1985 1-8-1984 to 31-8-1984 5.  26-3-1985 1-10-1984 to 31-10-1984 6.  19-4-1985 1-11-1984 to 30-11-1984 7.  8-5-1985 1-12-1984 to 31-12-1984 8.  8-5-1985 1-1-1985 to 31-1-1985 9.  17-5-1985 1-2-1985 to 28-2-1985 10.  9-7-1985 1-3-1985 to 31-3-1985 11.  15-11-1984 1-3-1983 to 31-12-1983 12.  15-11-1984 1-1-1984 to 31-5-1984 We find that the entire period covered by Serial No. 11 and parts of the periods covered by Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 12 notices would be beyond the period of six months stipulated in Section 11 of the Act. The sho....