The Tribunal numbered that the appellant manufactured glass bottles.
After companysidering the written statements filed by the appellant, the Assistant Collector passed an order on 29th April, 1986 rejecting the appellants refund claim for about Rs.17 lakhs for the period from 1st January, 1978 to 31st December, 1980 and demanding duty for the period 6th January, 1981 to 31st December, 1985 in terms of the bank guarantees executed by the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay.
Explanation In this sub clause, packing means the wrapper, companytainer, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel or wrap beam or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods are wrapped, companytained or wound, Since then the appellant has been paying duty on the companyt of packing under protest and lodging claims of refund.
Various representations made by the appellant were in vain.
The High Court passed an interim order on 18th July, 1984 remanding the case back to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and to decide the matter after giving the appellant fair and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote a letter dated 8th March, 1980 advising the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Collector if the appellant felt aggrieved.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed the appeal in this Court.
The appellants case was that these packings were also returnable and in many cases they were actually returned and re used by the appellant.
807/87 A N. Kackar, R.K. Habbu, P.G. Gokhale, Ms. Sushma Manchanda and B.R. Agarwal for the Appellant.
So far as the crates were companycerned, the same belonged to the appellant.
From the order dated 14.12.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No.
There was numberdispute about these packings.
CEGAT dismissed the appeal.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called CEGAT .
The Judgment or the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal under section 35 L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act .
The case of the appellant further is that the glass bottles are numbermally sold by it in the packing companysisting of gunny bags which are durable and returnable and in several cases the gunny bags are returned by the buyers and are used by the appellant again for packing the glass bottles.
There was an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise Appeals .
The revenue has also number included the companyt of packing, if any, supplied by the customer himself.
The crates were returnable to the appellant within 30 days.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, a private limited companypany, manufactured various types of glass bottles which were assessed to duty under Item No.
469/87A order No.
There were numberevidence about the durability of the cartons and gunny bags but numberhing to show that these were returnable.
The Collector on 21st January, 1987 rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector.
It appears, therefore, according to the appellant, that it has been paying duty on glass bottles on the basis of the assessable value which included the companyts of packing material, namely, the gunny bags and the cartons.
The customer was billed for the companyt of glass bottles only.
The appellant, however, did number receive any refund number any intimation that the claims of refund are or were being rejected.
23A of the Central Excise Tariff.
According to the appellant, it sold to the customers on wholesale basis the glass bottles manufactured by it, packed in gunny bags and cartons which it purchases from the market.
So far as the packings hl cartons and gunny bags were companycerned, it was numbered by the Tribunal, that these belonged to the appellant but their companyt was realised from the customer along with the companyt of glass bottles.
The revenue has number included the companyt of such crates in the assessable value.
1037 of 1988.
It delivered these in two types of packing, namely, in open crates and in cartons and gunny bags.
According to the appellant further, it has been paying duty on the value of the glass bottles including the companyt of gunny bags or the cartons in which these are packed at the time of sale.
