TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (9) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny bags. On 13-9-75, they submitted a revised price list to take effect from 1-10-75 for ordinary Grey Portland Cement without including the cost of packing on account of gunny bags. This price list was approved by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Udaipur on 8-10-75. Later in a letter dated 6-11-75, the Supdt. of C.E. revised the said price list so as to include the cost of packing in the assessable value. The appellant paid the Central Excise duty on the enhanced value effective from 8-11-75 under protest. The Supdt. of C.E. raised a demand of differential duty for the period 1-10-75 to 31-10-75. After due process, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise held that with reference to Sec. 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee, and, therefore, the cost of such packing is not to be included in the assessable value under Section 4. In this context, the appellants refer to certain instructions of the Ministry of Industrial Development which, according to them, enjoins upon the manufacturers of cement to use both new and old gunny bags for packing cement in the then ratio of 50 : 50. Further, according to the appellants, the gunny bags which are used for packing cement are purchased from the open market and had already paid duty under the appropriate item and, therefore, Central Excise duty cannot be recovered on these bags again. They also find fault with the authorities below and point out that it is not correct to say that the appellants were payin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which cement is packed is to be included in the assessable value thereof. It is quite clear that unless the packing is durable and returnable its value has to be included in the assessable value of the goods. The respondent made a good point when he submitted that the gunny bags cannot be considered as returnable and cited the judgment [1981 (10) E.L.T. 821]. The relevant part of this judgment which would clinch the issue before us is re-produced below :- "We are unable to agree with the submission in the face of the clear language of the provision. The expression "returnable by the buyer to the seller" places the matter beyond the pale of controversy. 'Returnable' means returnable as per agreement between the buyer and the seller. What ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also seen the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others etc., etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc., etc. [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896]. In Para 51 of the judgment, the Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the position in regard to the cost of packing is the same under the Act both before and after the amendment of the Act. It is observed in their judgment as follows :- "It is relevant to note that the packing, of which the cost is included, is the packing in which the goods are wrapped, contained or wound when the goods are delivered at the time of removal. In other words, it is the packing in which it is ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade to the wholesale buyer. The degree of packing in which the ex....