SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 420

M.M.DUTT, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
K. Radha Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates:
K.R.NAMBIAR, Y.G.RAMA MURTHY

ORDER :- The only question which arises in this Special Leave Petition is as to what is true meaning and scope of the word "returnable" in S. 4( 4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. If the packing is durable and returnable then its cost is liable to be excluded in computation of the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of excise duty. So far as the question of durability is concerned, there cannot be much controversy about it, but a question has been raised as to what is the meaning and connotation of the word "returnable". Does it mean physically capable of being returned or does it postulate an arrangement under which the packing is returnable. While interpreting this word, we must bear in mind that what S. 4(4)(d)(i) excludes from computation is cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is "returnable by the buyer to the assessee." The packing must be one which is returnable by the buyer to the assessee and obviously that must be under an arrangement between the buyer and the assessee. It is not the physical capability of the packing to be returned which is the determining factor because, in that event, the words "by the buyer to the assessee" need

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top