2000 (10) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed plastic bags. The PTA cleared for captive consumption is generally not packed although some quantity of it was to be so packed. At the relevant time PTA captively consumed was not exempted from duty. The appellant filed price lists showing the cost of the PTA for captive consumption. This was not accepted on the ground that the price of PTA that was cleared for home consumption being available, it is that price that should be applied. Adjudicating on the notice the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), confirmed the demand for duty. He did not accept the appellant's contention that since the PTA cleared for captive consumption is not packed, packing cost is to be excluded. Hence this appeal. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds, the cost of such packing would not form part of the assessable value. This is the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Polymers v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165. In other words, only the cost of packing incurred by the manufacturer of the goods would be includible in the value of the goods under Section 4(1)(a). The same position would obtain if the value is to be determined under Section 4(1)(b). In that case it is rule 6(b)(1) of the Valuation Rules that would apply. The value would have to be determined on the value of the goods cleared for home consumption after making adjustments on account of packing, as provided in proviso under this rule. 4.The Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Insecticides Limited v. CCE rested entir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision has laid down the law with regard to valuation of captively consumed goods. 6.The departmental representative has no answer to the other arguments raised by the advocate for the appellant except with regard to quantification of duty. He contends that Section 4 of the Act provides for valuation of "such goods" i.e., excisable goods manufactured and cleared and there is no difference between the PTA unpacked or packed. What is cleared is PTA. This is really is no answer. If the appellant had cleared for home consumption PTA unpacked and PTA packed at the same time, the value of each of this has to be arrived at differently. Where the manufacturer does not incur any expenses on account of packing, the packing charges would not form....