TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise duty upon the tread rubber manufactured by them including in the value thereof its packing cost. In January 1974 the petitioners learnt of the decision of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 8th June 1973 in the case of the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., that the packing cost of tread rubber was to be excluded in computing the excisable value. On 17th January 1974 the petitioners made an application to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay, for refund of the excise duty on the cost of packing the tread rubber manufactured by them during the twelve months ended 31st December 1973. The claim for refund was in the sum of Rs. 1,26,329/-. On 27th July 1974 the amount of the claim for refund was revised. 3. On 1st ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners' revision application to the 1st respondent it was stated that tread rubber was strong and hardy and, therefore, no question could arise of its suffering breakage or deterioration in quality when it was not packed. Thus, the tread rubber was capable of being delivered without being packed. It was packed only to facilitate commercial handling and transportation rather than for preserving the goods. It was more in the form of a customer service to the ultimate user of the tread rubber than as an essential protective item. In the 1st respondent's order in revision it was observed that the amount of the packing charges was neither separately identifiable nor separately invoiced. Even if there was some amount which had been incurred by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the wholesale cash price of the excisable article at the factory gate. 7. The question of secondary packing was considered again by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. & Ors; 1985 E.L.T. 360. The Court was divided, the majority view being taken by Pathak and A.N. Sen, JJ. and the minority view by the learned Chief Justice. The majority view was expressed by A.N. Sen, J. Thus : "On a proper construction of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act read with the Explanation, I am of the opinion that any secondary packing done for the purpose of facilitating transport and smooth transit of the goods to be delivered to the buyer in the whole-sale trade cannot be included in the value for the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merely for the purpose of facilitating transport or smooth transit. They are necessary for selling the tread rubber in the wholesale trade and are not secondary packing materials whose cost must be excluded from the assessable value of the tread rubber. 11. It was urged by Mr. Talyarkhan that inasmuch as the authorities had, in passing the impugned orders, not considered this aspect of the matter, there should be an order of remand to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners' refund application afresh in the light of the afore-mentioned Supreme Court judgments. It was also pointed out by him that in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, in the case of the tread rubber manufactured by the Madras Rubber Factor....