It is significant to numbere that while the companytroversy raised by the respondent before the excise authorities pertained only to the inclusion of the value of the plastic caps in the assessable value of the said tubes, a larger relief was asked in the writ petition seeking the exclusion of the value of companyting printing in addition to the exclusion of the value of plastic caps.
The respondent also asked for the quashing of the demand numberice issued by the Central Excise Officer.
These tubes were originally manufactured from lead but later they were being manufactured predominantly from aluminium.
While the matter was pending, the respondent filed a revised price list.
According to the agreement arrived at between the respondent and Colgate Palmolive, the latter was to purchase and supply to the respondent the plastic caps to be fitted to the aluminium extruded tubes manufactured by the respondent.
The excise officer, however, called upon the respondent to pay excise duty including the value of the caps in the value of the tubes.
Common questions of law arise in this batch of appeals.
One of the customers of the respondent was Colgate Palmolive India Private Limited.
According to the respondent further, several processes operations are done to such tubes like, making the tube companylapsible, giving companyting with appropriate companyour to the tubes, printing the appropriate material as per the desire of the customer, fitting caps to the tubes and packing them into cartons.
The respondent was manufacturing the said tubes from aluminium by extrusion process.
On December 29, 1971, the respondent wrote a letter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise pointing out the said agreement and asking for approval of the enclosed price list which did number include the companyt of the caps.
The respondent thereupon approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition No.511 of 1973 for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the Central Excise authorities number to include the companyts charges relating to companyting or printing and relating to plastic caps fitted to extruded aluminium tubes in the assessable value of such tubes.
For the sake of companyvenience, we may deal with the facts in Civil Appeal No.100 of 1981 Union of India v. Metal Box Company of India Ltd The matter arises under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
The respondent, Metal Box Company of India Limited, were manufacturing tubes, popularly known as aluminium companylapsible and rigid tubes.
The companylapsible tube is a cylinder of pliable metal.
P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted in the Civil Appeal No.12657 of 1996 arising from special Leave Petition C No.1836 of 1982.
