Supreme Court of India
M/S. ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF M/S EICHER LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 567
- Decided
- 10 August 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The cost of packing incurred on motorcycles delivered in a packed condition at the time of removal is part of the assessable value for excise duty, unless the packing is of a durable nature and returnable to the assessee.
Summary
Royal Enfield (unit of M/s Eicher Ltd.) manufactured motorcycles and dispatched them to dealers outside Chennai in a packed condition, charging Rs.190 per bike as packing charges and claiming an abatement in the assessable value for excise duty. The Central Excise authorities disallowed the inclusion of these packing charges, leading to a demand for differential duty, which the company contested through successive appeals up to the Supreme Court. The Court examined Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates that the cost of packing be included in the value of goods when they are delivered in packed condition at the time of removal, except where the packing is of a durable nature and returnable to the assessee. Relying on the decisions in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., Bombay Tyre International Ltd., Godfrey Philips India Ltd., and others, the Court held that the packing provided for the motorcycles was necessary to place the goods in the condition in which they are ordinarily sold at the factory gate and was therefore includable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the packing charges were to be treated as part of the assessable value, with each party bearing its own costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the cost of packing charges incurred by the appellant is liable to be included in the assessable value of motorcycles under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Whether the packing in question is of a durable nature and returnable to the assessee, which would exempt it from inclusion.
Legislation cited
- Central Excise Act, 1944s. 4(4)(d)(i)
- Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985s. Chapter 87
Subjects
central excisevaluationpacking chargesassessable valueSection 4motorcyclesexcise dutyprimary packingsecondary packing
Judgment
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 1089
>
..
M/S. ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF MIS .. EICHER LTD.) A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
(Civil Appeal No. 4406 of 2010)
-4
AUGUST 10, 2011
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE,
JJ.]
Central Excise Act, 1944 - s.4(4)(d)(i) - Valuation for
ourpose of excise duty - Appe//ant-assessee was c
manufacturing motorcycles - The motorcycles were cleared
by the assessee to dealers located outside the city by sending
-#- them to their various depots on stock transfer basis and in
packed condition from their factory - Whether the cost of
packing charges expended/incurred by appellant-company D
was liable to be included in the assessable value of the
motorcycles manufactured by appellant-company - Held:
The packing given by appellant-company to their motorcycles
was necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition
in which it was generally sold in the wholesale market at the E
factory gate and, therefore, such cost was liable to be included
in the value of the goods and the cost of such packing could
not be excluded - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter
_,
87.
The appellant-assessee was manufacturing F
rnotorcycles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Despite the fact that the said
rnotorcycles were cleared by the assessee to dealers
located outside the city by sending them to their various
depots on stock transfer basis and in packed condition G
"'""'\ '
from their factory, the assessee did not include the value
of packing charges in the assessable value for
motorcycles. The appellant charged Rs.190/- as packing
charges. The appellant-company filed price declaration
1089 H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A for the vehicles sold from their depots and therein
..
declared the depot sale price per vehicle and claimed
abatement of Rs.190l- per vehicle towards packing
charges. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
disallowed the abatement of Rs. 190/- claimed by the ....
s assessee towards the cost of packing. The appellant-
company filed appeal before the Commissioner of
Central Excise [Appeah~J. which got rejected. Aggrieved,
the assE!ssee-company filed appeal before the Tribunal
which also was rejected and, therefore, the present
c appeal was filed by thE! appellant-company.
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was as to whether the cost of packing
charges expended/incurred by the appellant-company
was liable to be includ4~d in the assessable value of the
D motorcycles manufactuired by the appellant-company.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. The provisions of the Central Excise Act,
E 1944 indicate that them is express provision in Section
4 of the Act for including the cost of packing in the
determination of value for the purpose of excise duty.
Sub-Section 4 (d)(i) along with explanation provide that
where ge>ods are delivered at the time of removal from the
factory gate in a packed condition the value would
F include the cost of such packing but would not include
such cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is
returnable by the buyer to the assessee. [Para 11) [1097-
H; 1098-A-B]
G 1.2. In the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. case, a three-
Judge BEmch of this Court held that where the goods are
delivered in a packed condition at the time of removal the
cost of such packing shall be included. While recording
the aforesaid conclusion this Court took notice of the
H aforesaid definition of value as given in sub-Section 4 of
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF MIS. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1091
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
~ ~
Section 4 of the Act and held that the provision in the sub- A
clause is a plain one and does not admit of any ambiguity
as what it says is that where the goods are delivered in
a packed condition, at the time of removal, the cost of
such packing shall be included and that only where such
packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the B
buyer to the assessee, should the cost of such packing
be not included in the value of the goods. The aforesaid
decision was rendered by this Court with respect to
"tyres" which also were sold at the factory gate in a
packed condition for onward easy transportation. In the c
background of the said case, it was held that the cost of
such packing would be included in the assessable value.
Almost similar are the facts of the present case. The
authorities below as also the Tribunal found that the facts
of the present case entirely fit in the facts of the aforesaid
D
decision in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.. The
said three authorities as also the Tribunal on analyzing
the records came to a finding that the packing which is
given by the appellant-company to their motorcycles is
necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition
in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the E
factory gate and, therefore, such cost is liable to be
included in the value of the goods and the cost of such
packing cannot be excluded. The aforesaid conclusions
are based on cogent reasons and are also supported by
a well-reasoned decision of a three Judges Bench of this F
Court. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal
as also by the authorities below are confirmed. [Paras 14,
15, 16 and 18) [1100-E-G; 1101-F-H; 1102-A·D-E]
-~ 't
1.3. Although, the appellant-company submitted that G
the facts of this case are more akin to the cases of
Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and also that Godfrey
Philips India Ltd. & Ors. case considered the above
situation of facts and law, all the aforesaid decisions,
which are relied upon by the appellant, were taken notice H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 9 S.C.R.
A of in the subsequent decision in Madras Rubber Factory "
Ltd. and this Court after detailed discussion of such
cases has given a very reasoned order which is
applicable to the facts of the present case in full force.
[Para 17] [1102-B-C]
8
Government of India v. Mis. Madras Rubber Factory
Limited 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC): (1995) 4 SCC 349 - relied
on.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Mis. Eicher
C Limited 2001 (136) ELT 1029 [Tri. Delhi]; Union of India &
Ors. V. Bombay Tyre international Ltd. 1983 (14) ELT 1896
(SC); Union of India 81 Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. &
Ors.1985 (22) ELT 306 (SC); Hindustan Polymers v. Collector
of Central Excise 1989 (43) ELT 165 (SC) - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference:
1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) relied on Para 6,10,14,16,
17
2001 (136) ELT 102!~ referred to Para 6
E [Tri. Delhi]
1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC) referred to Para 9, 12, 14,
17
1985 (22) ELT 306 (SC) referred to Para 9, 13, 14,
F 17
1989 (43) ELT 165 (SC) referred to Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4406 of 2010.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 24.11.2009 of
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,
Chennai in Appeal No. E/872/03.
Alok Yadav, Krishna Mohan (for M.P. Devnath) for the
H Appellant.
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF M/S. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1093
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
•
R.P. Bhatti, Sunita Rani Singh, B. Krishna Prasad for the A
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
......\ DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this judgment
and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which is filed B
by the appellant-company challenging the judgment and order
dated 24.11.2009 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal [for short "the Tribunal"], Chennai, whereby
the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and
upheld the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise c
[Appeals], Chennai.
2. The issue that arises for our consideration in the present
' case is as to whether the cost of packing charges expended/
incurred by the appellant-company is liable to be included in D
the assessable value of the motorcycles manufactured by the
appellant-company.
3. The appellant-company, previously known as Mis.
Eicher Limited - unit Royal Enfield Motors, are manufacturing
motorcycles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff E
Act, 1985. The issue relates to non-inclusion of the value of
packing charges by the assessee-company in the assessable
value for motorcycles despite the fact that the said motorcycles
>
were cleared by the assessee to the dealers located outside
Chennai by sending them to their various depots on stock F
transfer basis and in packed condition from their factory during
the period from April, 1999 to December, 1999.
4. At the time of removal from the factory to depot the
motorcycles were cleared in fully packed condition. It is also F
,..,. ' established from records that Rs. 190/- is being charged as
packing charges by the appellant and, therefore, the said
amount which was collected as packing charges must have
been passed on to the buyers. The appellant-company filed
price declaration in Annexure-11 for the vehicles sold from their
H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A depots and therein declared the depot sale price per vehicle
and claimed abatement of Rs. 190/- per vehicle towards
packing charges.
5. A show cause notice dated 4.10.1999 was issued by ,.._
the respondent to the appellant-company for the period from
B
April, 19H9 to September, 1999 directing ther'n to show cause
as to why the aforesaid at>atemeAt claimed of Rs. 190/- should
not be disallowed and ais to why a differential duty of Rs.
4,41,043/- and Cess of Rs. 2,228/- should not be demanded.
Thereafter, another similar show cause notice dated 24.2.2002
c was also issued for a subsequent period, i.e., from October,
1999 to December, 19991 demanding differential duty of Rs.
2,45,602/- and Cess of Rs. 1,279/-.
~
6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, •
D Chennai 'C' Division passed an order-in-original disallowing
the abatement of Rs. 190/- claimed by the assessee towards
the cost of packing and upheld the demand made in the show
cause notices. While recording the aforesaid finding and the
conclusion, the Assistant Commissioner referred to the
E decision of this Court in the case of Government of India v.
Mis. Madras Rubber Factory Limited reported in 1995 (77)
ELT 433 (SC): (1995) 4 sec 349 and on another order of the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
<
in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Ml
F s. Eicher Limited reported in 2001 (136) ELT 1029 [Tri. Delhi]
in which the Tribunal, in respect of the same assessee, held
that the cost of packing is to be included in the assessable
value of the motorcycles manufactured by it. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner the
appellant-·company filed an appeal before the Commissioner
G
of Central Excise [Appeals], Chennai which gc~ rejected by .--
order dated 23.07.2003 while relying on the decision of
CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Jaipur [supra].
H 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF MIS. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1095
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
--
''
"' of Central Excise [Appeals], Chennai assessee-company filed A
an appeal before the Tribunal, Chennai which also was rejected
by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 and,
therefore, the present appeal was filed in this Court by the
appellant-company on which we heard the learned counsel
_... appearing for the parties. B
8. During the course of hearing our attention was drawn
to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short "the Act"],
the relevant portion of which is extracted below for better
understanding and ready reference: -
c
"Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of
charging of duty of excise -
-; (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable
on any excisable goods with reference to value, such D
value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section,··
be deemed to be -
(a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price
at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the
assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale E
trade for delivery at the time and place of removal,
where the buyer is not a related person and the
,. price is the sole consideration for the sale:
).
........................................ F
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....
(4) For the purposes of this section, -
-,. . (a) "assessee" means the person who is liable to
pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes
his agent;
G
(b) "place of removal" means -
(i) a factory or any other place or premises H
1096 SUPREME COUFff REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A of production or manufacture of the excisable
goods;
(ii) a warehouse or any other place or
premises wherein the excisable goods have
B
been permitted to be deposited without ..
payment of duty;
(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment
agent or any other place or premises from
where thE~ excisable goods are to be sold
c after their clearance from the factory and,
From where such goods are removed;
· (ba) "time of removal". in respect of goods removed from .. _
the place of removal reforred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause
D (b), shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods
are cleared from the fac:tory;
E
(d) "value", in relation to any excisable goods, -
(i) where the goods are delivered at the time of
removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of
F such packing excE~pt the cost of the packing which
is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer
to the assessee.
Explanation - In this sub-clause, "packing" means the
wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel or warp beam
G or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods
are wrapped, contained or wound; " --
..
H
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF MIS. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1097
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
/ " 9. Relying on the same counsel appearing for the A
appellant-company submitted before us that the cost of the
packing material cannot be included in the assessable value
because the said cost of the packing material cannot be said
to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the
__.
assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for B
.J
delivery at the time and place of removal. He also submitted
that the requisite packing is done so as to avoid scratch to the
painted body and breakage of the lights fitted on to the
-, motorcycles during transportation, and therefore, the cost of the
aforesaid packing was not includable as per Section 4 of the c
Central Excise Act to the value of the motorcycles. In support
of the aforesaid contentions he relied and referred to various
judgments of this Court, viz., Union of India & Ors. V. Bombay
; tyre International Ltd. reported at 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC);
Union of India & Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. & Ors. D
reported at 1985 (22) ELT 306 (SC) and Hindustan Polymers
v. collector of Central Excise reported at 1989 (43) ELT 165
(SC).
10. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however,
submitted that the aforesaid submissions are untenable in view E
of the settled position of law in the decision of this Court in the
case of Government of India v. Mis. Madras Rubber Factory
Limited [supra). He also drew our attention to the fact that the
appellant has been realizing Rs. 190/- as packing charges from
the buyers, therefore, the entire amount is passed on to the F
buyers by the appellant-company. He also submitted that the
cases relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellant
are distinguishable on facts. In the light of the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the
parties we would proceed to discuss and answer the issue G
...... j.
raised before us .
11. The provisions extracted hereinbefore from the Central
Excise Act would indicate that there is express provision in
Section 4 for including the cost of packing in the determination
H
1098 SUPREME COUFff REPORTS [2011.J 9 S.C.R.
A of value for the purpose of excise duty. Sub-Section 4 (d)(i)
along with explanation has relevant bearing on the present case.
According to the said provision where goods are delivered at
the time of removal from the factory gate in a packed condition
the value would include the cost of such packing but would not
B include sw;h cost of packing which is of a durable nature and
is returnable by the buyer ti0 the assessee.
12. In Union of India & Ors. V. Bombay Tyre lntemational
Ltd. reported at 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC): (1984) 1 SCC 467
C this Court had an occasion to deal with the said provision and
in paragraph of the said judgment this Court has held thus: -
" 15. The case in respect of the cost of packing is
somewhat complex. The new Section 4(4)(d)(i) has made
express provision for including the cost of packing in the
D determination of "value" for the purpose of excise duty.
Inasmuch as the case o'f the parties is that the new Section
4 substantially reflects the position obtaining under the
unamended Act, we shall proceed on the basis that the
position in regard to the cost of packing is the same under
E the Act, both before and after the amendment of the Act.
Section 4(4)(d)(i) reads:
"(4) For the purposes of this section,-
* * *
F
(d) "value" in relation to any excisable goods,-
(i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal
in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing
except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature
G and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee."
Explanation.-ln this sub-clause 'packing' means the
wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel or warp beam
or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods
H are wrapped, contained or wound;"
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF MIS. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1099
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
) . It is relevant to note that the packing, of which the cost is
included, is the packing in which 'the goods are wrapped,
A
contained or wound when the goods are delivered at the time
of removal. In other words, it is the packing in which it is
ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade to the wholesale
buyer. The degree of packing in which the excisable article is B
contained will vary from one class of articles to another. From
the particulars detailed before us by the assessees, it is
apparent that the cost of primary packing, that is to say, the
packing in which the article is contained and in which it is made
marketable for the ordinary consumer, for example a tube of c
toothpaste or a bottle of tablets in a cardboard carton, or
biscuits in a paper wrapper or in a tin container, must be
regarded as falling within Section 4(4)(d)(i). That is indeed
conceded by learned counsel for the assessee. It is the cost
• of secondary packing which has raised serious dispute.
0
Secondary packing is of different grades. There is the
secondary packing which consists of larger cartons in which a
standard number of primary cartons (in the sense mentioned
earlier) are packed. The large cartons may be packed into
even larger cartons for facilitating the easier transport of the E
goods by the wholesale dealer. Is all the packing, no matter to
what degree, in which the wholesale dealer takes delivery of
the goods to be considered for including the cost thereof in the
"value"? Or does the law require a line to be drawn
somewhere? We must remember that while packing is
necessary to make the excisable article marketable, the F
statutory provision calls for strict construction because the levy
is sought to be extended beyond the manufactured article itself.
It seems to us that the degree of secondary packing which is
necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in
which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory G
gate is the degree of packing whose cost can be included in
the "value" of the article for the purpose of the excise levy. To
that extent, the cost of secondary packing cannot be deducted
from the wholesale cash price of the excisable article at the
factory gate." H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 13. In Union of India & Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.
& Ors. reported at 1985 (22) ELT 306 (SC) this Court again
. \
considered a similar issue. What was decided by the majority
of Judges in the said case was that the cost of packing done
for protection of excisable goods during the transportation is
!--
B also includible in assessable value. The said case basically
revolved round the cost of corrugated fibreboard containers and
all the three learned Judges uniformly reiterated the principles
and the test evolved in Bombay Tyre International but arrived
at divergent conclusions (th13 majority comprising Pathak and
c Sen, JJ. taking one view and Bhagwati, C.J., the other) on the
basis of differing perception:s as to the factual situation in that
case. As was noted in the said case the majority and minority
came to different conclusions not on account of their adopting
a different test or principle but only on account of their differing
perceptions of the factual situation. So far as the test applicable
0
is concerned, all the three loamed Judges were at one and in
agreement.
14. Finally in the decision of Government of India v.
Madras Rubber Factory Ltct. reported at 1995 (77) ELT 433
E (SC) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that where the
goods are delivered in a packed condition at the time of
removal the cost of such packing shall be included. While
recording the aforesaid conc;lusion this Court took notice of the
aforesaid definition of value as given in sub-Section 4 of Section
F 4 of the Act. After noticing trhe aforesaid definition it was held
that the provision in the sub-clause is a plain one and does not
admit of any ambiguity as what it says is that where the goods
are delivered in a packed condition, at the time of removal, the
cost of such packing shall b1~ included and that only where such
G packing is of a durable nature and is re~urnable by the buyer
to the assessee, should the cost of such packing be not
included in the value of the goods. It was also held in that
decision that the concept of primary and secondary packing
which is recognized to some extent in the decision of this Court
H in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case [supra], which is not
ROYAL ENFIELD (UNIT OF M/S. EICHER LTD.) v. COMMR. OF 1101
CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
\} A
possible to be wished away and is merely a refinement and is A
not borne out by the express language of the enactment and,
therefore, the same is to be resorted to with care and
circumspection. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to discuss the
case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. [supra] and also the
...; decision in Godfrey Philips India Ltd. & Ors. [supra]. Having
_) B
discussed both the cases, this Court laid down the test in the
following terms: -
"43 ........... Whether packing, the cost whereof is sought
to be included is the packing in which it is ordinarily sold
in the course of a wholesale trade to the wholesale buyer.
c
In other words, whether such packing is necessary for
putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is
.,; generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate.
If it is, then its cost is liable to be included in the value of
the goods; and if it is not, the cost of such packing has to D
be excluded.
......................."
15. The aforesaid decision was rendered by this Court E
with respect to "tyres" which also were sold at the factory gate
in a packed condition for onward easy transportation. In the
background of the said case, it was field that the cost of such
packing would be included in the assessable value.
16. Almost similar are the facts of the present case. The F
authorities below as also the Tribunal found that the facts of the
present case entirely fit in the facts of the aforesaid decision
in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [supra]. The said
three authorities as also the Tribunal on analyzing the records
came to a finding that the packing which is given by the G
·-1 appellant-company to their motorcycles is necessary for putting
the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold
in the wholesale market at the factory gate and, therefore, such
cost is liable to be included in the value of the goods and the
cost of such packing cannot be excluded. The aforesaid H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A conclusions are based on cogent reasons and are also • i(
supported by a well-reasoned decision of three Judges Bench
of this Court.
17. Although, the counsel appearing for the appellant-
s company vehemently submitted that the facts of this case are ,._
more akin to the cases of Elombay Tyre International Ltd.
[supra) and also to the that of Godfrey Philips India Ltd., & Ors.
case [supra] having considered the above situation of facts and
law, we are of the considered opinion, that all the aforesaid
C decisions, which are relied upon by the counsel appearing for
the appellant, were taken notice of in the subsequent decision
in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [supra] and this Court after
detailed disc;ussion of such cases has given a very reasoned
order which is applicable to the facts of the present case in full
force.
D
18. Therefore, we agree and confirm the findings recorded
by the Tribunal as also by the authorities below and dismiss
this appeal but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
E 8.8.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "central excise"Sign in to search