ORDER
K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)
1. Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 allows exclusion of cost of packing from the assessable value of goods if the packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the asses-see. The respondents manufactured compressed oxygen gas and cleared it packed in cylinders. The question for consideration in this appeal of the department is whether the deduction of Re.l/- per cubic metre of gas, representing the phased cost of the cylinder over its total life span, claimed by the respondents for exclusion from the sale price of the gas should be allowed. There is no dispute that the gas cylinders were durable and returnable.
2. A gas cylinder costs the respondents about Rs. 1,600/- as its initial purchase price. The case of the respondents is that they never recovered this amount in lumpsum from their customers either by way of sale price or by way of security deposit. They took only a small fraction of it from the customers by way of security deposit. The amount of Re.l/- had been calculated by them as under vide their letter dated 29.9.1982 addressed to the Superintendent Central Excise :-
“In this regard we beg to state that ;-
Cylinder maintenance charges not only includes maintenance charges of the cylinders but also includes cost of the cylinders itself which have been calculated in terms of per M3 as per details given below :-
1. Approximate cost of 1 cylinder ...Rs. 1600/-
2. Approximate life of 1 cylinder ...12 years
3. Turn-over of 1 cylinder in 1 year ...28 times
4. Average capacity of 1 cylinder ...7.0 M
(i) Accordingly the cost per M3 on account of cylinder is coming:
1600 = Rs. 0.68 per M3
-----------
12X28X7
(ii) Add : Financial charges @ 18% = Rs. 0.12
(iii) Cost of valves, painting = Rs. 0.20
-----------
Re. 1.00"
In response to a querry from the Bench, the respondents stated that the financial charges aforesaid represented the interest on the difference between the purchase price of the cylinder and the small amount of security deposit taken from the customers.
3. We have heard both sides and have given the matter our earnest consideration. We find force in the respondents’ submission that by the above method they were only trying to recover the total cost of the cylinder in instalments spread over the life span of the cylinder. It was only a single recovery and not a double recovery over and above the initial purchase price of the cylinder. The respondents cited two previous judgments of this Tribunal in their favour :-
1. 1986 (26) ELT 265 (T) – Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Kalyan.
2. Order No. 247/86-A, dated 27.3.1986 in E-Appeal No. 1216/84-A – Collector of Central Excise, Cochin v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
The learned representative of the department relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Order No. 582/85-A in the case of Indian Vegetable Products. We find that in this case the cans were held to be not returnable in view of their being no agreement on record for their return. This case is, therefore, distinguishable from the one before us.
4. Following the ratio of our earlier two decisions relied on by the respondents, we uphold the impugned order and reject this appeal.