Open iDraf
K. Radha Krishaiah v. Inspector Of Central Excise, Gooty And Others

K. Radha Krishaiah
v.
Inspector Of Central Excise, Gooty And Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 4287 Of 1986 | 04-11-1986


1. The only question which arise sin this Special Leave Petition is as what is true meaning and scope of the word "returnable" in Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. If the packing is durable and returnable than 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 such 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 Section 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 the 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 Section 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 is determination of the assessable value of the goods.

2. The Special Leave Petition will, therefore, stand rejected.

Advocates List

For

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE V. B. ERADI

HON'BLE JUSTICE M. M. DUTT

Eq Citation

AIR 1987 SC 1774

(1987) 2 SCC 457

1987 (12) ECC 224

1987 (27) ELT 598 (SC)

1987 (2) APLJ (SC) 71

1989 (20) ECR 407 (SC)

1986 (2) SCALE 880

LQ/SC/1986/421

HeadNote

Excise — Central Excises Act, 1944 — S. 44di — Exclusion of cost of packing — Meaning of quotreturnablequot — Packing must be returnable under an arrangement between buyer and assessee — Not physical capability of packing to be returned — Held, what S. 44di excludes from computation is cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is quotreturnable by the buyer to the assesseequot — 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 the event the words quotby the buyer to the assesseequot 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. 44di is that the packing must be returnable by the buyer to the assessee — 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 — Excise Authorities were therefore right in not excluding the cost of packing is determination of the assessable value of the goods