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

1986 Supreme(SC) 420

V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Petn. for Spl. Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4287 of 1986,
D/- 4-11-1986.
K. Radha Krishnaiah, Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General Excise Gooty and others, Respondents.

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

Headnote:

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Section 4( 4)(d)(i) - Assessable Value Of Goods - Excise Duty - Packing is Durable - Cost of Packing - If packing is durable and returnable then its cost is liable to be excluded in computation of assessable value of goods for purpose of excise duty - So far as question of durability is concerned, there cannot be much controversy about it, but a question has been raised as to what is meaning and connotation of the word returnable - Does it mean physically capable of being returned or does it postulate an arrangement under which packing is returnable - Question which arises in this Special Leave Petition is as to what is true meaning and scope of word "returnable" in S. 4( 4)(d)(i) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Held, While interpreting this word, Court 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 buyer to assessee." - Packing must be one which is returnable by buyer to assessee and obviously that must be under an arrangement between buyer and assessee - It is not physical capability of packing to be returned which is determining factor because, in that event, words "by buyer to assessee" need not have found a place in section : they would be superfluous - What is required for purpose of attracting applicability of exclusion clause in S. 4(4)(d)(i) is that packing must be returnable by buyer to assessee - Here in present case it is not contention of petitioner that there was any such arrangement for return of packing by wholesale buyers to petitioner nor is there any evidence to that effect - Excise Authorities were, therefore, right in not excluding the cost of packing in determination of assessable value of goods - Petition Dismissed.

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 not have found a place in the section : they would be superfluous. What is required for the purpose of attracting the applicability of the exclusion clause in S. 4(4)(d)(i) is that the packing must be returnable by the buyer to the assessee. The question which has to be asked in each case is : Is the packing in this case returnable by the buyer to the assessee and obviously it cannot be said that the packing is returnable by the buyer to the assessee unless there is an arrangement between them that it shall be returned. Here in the present case it is not the contention of the petitioner that there was any such arrangement for return of the packing by the wholesale buyers to the petitioner nor is there any evidence to that effect. The Excise Authorities were, therefore, right in not excluding the cost of packing in determination of the assessable value of the goods. The Special Leave Petition will, therefore, stand rejected.

Petition rejected

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 Back to top