ORDER
K.L. Rekhi, Member (J)
1. The common issue in these two appeals is whether the cost of wooden box used for packing of machine parts manufactured by the respondents should be included in the assessable value of the goods under Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30-4-1975 or not.
2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the practice of the respondents is to deliver their machine parts to local customers in polythene bags only. For out-station deliveries, a wooden box is used over and above the polythene bag. It is obvious from these facts that the wooden box packing is necessitated by the consideration of safety of the goods during long distance transportation only. Otherwise, the goods, being made of metal and not being delicate or fragile articles, are quite capable of being put in the wholesale market in polythene bag only and they are in fact so sold in the local wholesale market. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Godfrey Philips ‘1985 (22) ELT 306 and M.R.F. Ltd. 1987 (27) ELT 553, we held that the cost of wooden box is not includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act. It is by now well settled 1985 (22) ELT 159 (Tribunal) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., that whatever deductions are admissible from the gross sale price under Section 4 of the Act have also to be allowed under exemption Notification No. 120/75-CE while determining the assessable value of the goods. We also find that both the lower authorities have also held that the cost of wooden box was not includible in the assessable value. We agree with the conclusion of the lower authorities.
3. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals.
4. The cross objection No. E/Cross/432/86-A, does not, in the circumstances, survive. As a matter of fact, no further relief was sought by the respondents through this cross objection. We dismiss the cross objection also.