TRIVENI GLASS LTD., ALLAHABAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 22-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

· TRIVENI GLASS LTD.; ALLAHABAD 
A 
v . 
. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
, . FEBRUARY 22, 2005 
, I 
, 
. 
' 
•. 
[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Centr~I Ei:cises and Salt Act, 1944-S~ction 4~/rus sheets-Valuation 
of-For levy of excise duty-/nc/usi~n of cost of wooden packing in l1Ssessabl~ 
value thereof-Permissibility"of-Held : ·The cost .of wooden packing is C 
inc/udible In the assessable value of glass sheets-Homer, if the packing is 
of durable and returnable. nature, its cost not to be· included in the value of 
glass sheets.· .. 
;; 
' .. , 
. . 
Appellani-manufacturer of glass sheets filed .a price list in which the 
co;t or wooden crates ~s~d for'packing the glass sheets was not included. 
Assistant Colleetor p~ssed orders including the costs ofthe wooden packing 
in the
1a~sessable value of the glass sheets. Appeal thereagainst was allowed 
holding th~t the special packing was not necessary for making them 
marketable a;;d ihus .the .cost thereof was not includible in the value or 
D 
the glass she~ts: Despit~ the' order in the appeal Assistant Collector 
approved pri~e list by incl~di~g the co~t of wooden crates. Appellants filed E 
Writ Petition seeking direction to Assistant Collector to exclude the cost 
of wooden crates as this order was in defiance of order.in appeal. High 
Court held that th·e cost of wooden crates was includible in the assessable 
value of glass sheets; and that the wooden crates were. not durable and 
returnable; that mere theoretical possibility of the crates being returned F 
was not sufficient and there was no evidence of the return of the crates; 
and that 'durable' meant_ packing being of.such nature that the 
manufacturer intended the repe~ted use of the same. 
Department had also filed Revision Petition wherein Customs, Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that cost of wooden crates G 
was not includible in the assessable value_ of glass sheets. 
In appeal, against the order o( the High Court, the appellant 
contended that because as per the bills/invoices the packing was of durable 
and returnable nature and the same was to be refunded if returned intact 
' 
223 
H · 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A after facilitating safe transport, the same was liable to be excluded from 
assessable value of glass sheets. ··• 
· 
. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The costs of wooden packing is includible in the assessable 
B value of gla~s sheets. (227-AI 
;_,. 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Mis. Hindustan Safety 
Glass Works Ltd Judgment dated 22.2.2005 passed by Supreme Court in 
Civil Appeal No. 3819 of 1999, relied on. · 
• 
c 
2. Jn view of the specific term in the bills/invoices, the wooden crates·, 
are durable and returnable packing whose costs is not to be included in : 
the value of glass sheets. High Court was wrong in holding that the wooden 
crates are not durable or returnable. Wooden crates merely consist of 
planks of wood which are nailed together. Therefore, even if they are 
dismantled by the buyer ~nd the planks are returned to the Appellants 
D the Appellants wo~ld be in a position' to u•e them again~ There is no 
necessity that the crates m.usi be actually returned. So long as there is an 
~ 
·. 
-
. 
. . . 
-·. 
obligation on the seller to take back the. crates, if the buyer chooses to 
return them, it is sufficient. The terin iri° the ~on tract, imposes an obligation 
on the AppellantS to take back the woode~ crates and to pay the stipulated 
E amount to 'the' buyer if the buyer chooses to ret~rn them: (228-C-E) 
F 
G 
H 
. 
. 
/lfahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, (1988) 
36 E.L.T. 727; Wipro Products Lid v. Union of India, (1991) SJ ELT 281 
Born. and GobindGlasslndustries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 
Ahmedabad (2002) 150 ELT 293 CEGAT, referred to.· 
.,' 
. 
" ' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. I 115 of2000. 
, . 
I 
.. 
. .' I .. ' 
From the Judgment and Order dated I4.10.99 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M. W.P. No. 57(; of 1981.. . 
. 
. . 
. 
, 
. , . 
. ' 
S.K~ Bagaria, Tarun Gulati and Praveen 'Kumar for the A
0
ppellant. . . . 
. 
' 
. 
. 
. ' -
. 
. . 
. 
R. Venkataramani; cC Umapathy, Ashok Panigrahi, S. Gowtham, · P. 
Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
. 
. 
. . . 
. 
, 
. 
' 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was deli~~red by , 
; 
• 
< 
• 
• • 
' ., 
•• ' 
' ; -
~ j 
TRIVENI GLASS LTD. v. U.0.1. [VARIAVA .

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.