(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I _____________ Appellant
v.
M/s. SRF Limited, Manali _________________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4326 of 2008, decided on April 11, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The respondent, namely, M/s SRF Limited, Manali Chennai is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Filament Yarn of various deniers meant for use in the manufacture of tyre Cord Fabrics except 210 denier. The goods are exigible to excise duty. While clearing the goods the respondent has been declaring the value thereof but in that the cost of packing material was not included. The department herein issued show cause notice to the respondent as to why the cost of packing material be not included and passed order confirming the demand raised in the show cause notice treating the cost of packing material as the component of transaction valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise. The order of the adjudicating authority was challenged by the respondent assessee by filing an appeal before the Commissioner. Though, initially the matter was remanded back, the adjudicating authority, however, reiterated its earlier view whereupon the respondent filed the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) once again. This time the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 21.11.2007 and the order has been upheld by the CESTAT also by its order dated 28.3.2008 dismissing the appeal of the appellant.
2. The finding to the effect that the packing material which was used was durable and returnable by the buyer has come on record. On the basis of this finding the decision has been arrived at, which is the correct view in law. For this purpose, the Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of this Court in K. Radha Krishnaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise, 1987 (27) ELT 598, Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (36) ELT 727 and Triveni Glass Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 3 SCC 484.
3. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4326/2008
C.C.E., Chennai.….Appellant(s)
v.
M/s. SRF Ltd., Manali.….Respondent(s)
(office report)
Date: 11/04/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Garg, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv.
Mr. L Charnya, Adv.
Mr. Anandh K., Adv.
Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
4. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
