M/S Royal Enfield(Unit Of M/S Eicher Ld) vs Commr.Of Cen.Exc.Chennai

M/s. Royal Enfield (Unit of M/s. Eicher Ltd.) ....Appellant

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of this appeal

which is filed 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 [Appeals], Chennai.

2. The issue that arises for our consideration in the present case is as

Page 1 of 12

to whether the cost of packing charges expended/incurred by the

appellant-company is liable to be included in the assessable value of

the motorcycles manufactured by the appellant-company.

3. The appellant-company, previously known as M/s. Eicher Limited -

unit Royal Enfield Motors, are manufacturing motorcycles falling

under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff 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 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 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-II for the vehicles sold

from their depots and therein declared the depot sale price per

vehicle and claimed abatement of Rs. 190/- per vehicle towards

Page 2 of 12

packing charges.

5. A show cause notice dated 4.10.1999 was issued by the respondent

to the appellant-company for the period from April, 1999 to

September, 1999 directing them to show cause as to why the

aforesaid abatement claimed of Rs. 190/- should not be disallowed

and as 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 was also issued for a subsequent

period, i.e., from October, 1999 to December, 1999 demanding

differential duty of Rs. 2,45,602/- and Cess of Rs. 1,279/-.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, 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 decision of this Court in the case of Government of

India v. M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Limited reported in 1995

(77) ELT 433 (SC): (1995) 4 SCC 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. M/s. Eicher

Page 3 of 12

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 of Central Excise [Appeals], Chennai which

got 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].

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Central

Excise [Appeals], Chennai assessee-company filed 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.

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: -

"Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging

Page 4 of 12

of duty of excise -

(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any

excisable goods with reference to value, such 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 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:

........................................

........................................

(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;

(b) "place of removal" means -

(i) a factory or any other place or premises of

production or manufacture of the excisable goods;

(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises

wherein the excisable goods have 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 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 referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause

(b), shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods

are cleared from the factory;

........................................

........................................

(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 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

or any other thing in which or on which the excisable

Page 5 of 12

goods are wrapped, contained or wound;

........................................

........................................"

9. Relying on the same counsel appearing for the 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 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 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. 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

Page 6 of 12

aforesaid submissions are untenable in view of the settled position of

law in the decision of this Court in the case of Government of India

v. M/s. 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 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 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 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 include such cost of packing which is of

a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee.

Page 7 of 12 12. In Union of India & Ors. V. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.

reported at 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC): (1984) 1 SCC 467 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 determination of "value"

for the purpose of excise duty. Inasmuch as the case of 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 the Act, both before and after the amendment of

the Act. Section 4(4)(d)(i) reads:

"(4) For the purposes of this section,--

* * *

(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 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 or any other thing in which or on which the

excisable goods are wrapped, contained or wound;"

It is relevant to note that the packing, of which the cost is

included, is the packing in which the goods are wrapped,

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 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 toothpaste or a bottle of

Page 8 of 12

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. 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

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 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 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."

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 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

Page 9 of 12

principles and the test evolved in Bombay Tyre International but arrived at

divergent conclusions (the majority comprising Pathak and Sen, JJ. taking one

view and Bhagwati, C.J., the other) on the basis of differing perceptions 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 is concerned, all the three

learned Judges were at one and in agreement.

14. Finally in the decision of Government of India v. Madras Rubber

Factory Ltd. reported at 1995 (77) ELT 433 (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 conclusion this

Court took notice of the aforesaid definition of value as given in sub-

Section 4 of Section 4 of the Act. After noticing the 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 be included and that only

where such packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the

buyer to the assessee, should the cost of such packing be not

Page 10 of 12

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 in Bombay

Tyre International Ltd. case [supra], which is not possible to be

wished away and is merely a refinement and is 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 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. 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 be excluded.

......................."

15. 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 background of the said case, it

Page 11 of 12

was held that the cost of such packing would be included in the

assessable value.

16. 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 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 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

conclusions are based on cogent reasons and are also supported by a

well-reasoned decision of three Judges Bench of this Court.

17. Although, the counsel appearing for the appellant-company

vehemently submitted that the facts of this case are more akin to the

cases of Bombay 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 decisions, which are relied

Page 12 of 12

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 discussion of such cases has given a

very reasoned order which is applicable to the facts of the present

case in full force.

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.

............................................J

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

.............................................J

(ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 10, 2011.

Page 13 of 12