ORDER
K.L. Harish Chander, Member
1. The appellants manufactured tin containers and supplied them in cartons belonging to the customer. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether the cost of such cartons would be includible in the value of the tin containers for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The appellants rely on the following earlier judgments of this Tribunal which were in their favour :
(i) 1987 (31) ELT 786 (Tribunal)–Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. United Glass
(ii) 1987 (27) ELT 746 (Tribunal–Larger Bench)–Associated Cement Company and Ors.–Para. 19.
(iii) 1987 (28) ELT 449 (Tribunal)–Hindustan Lever Limited.
3. The learned representative of the Department pleaded that cost of packing (other than durable and returnable packing) was includible in the assessable value as per the specific provision of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and that the section made no distinction between packing belonging to the customer and that belonging to the manufacturer.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. This Tribunal’s order in the case of M/s. United Glass (supra) is, in turn, based on the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat & Karnataka High Courts in the cases of M/s. Alembic Industries Ltd. 1979 ELT-J 444 (Guj.) : (1986) 10 ECC 281 (Kar) : 1986 (24) ELT 23 (Karnataka). According to these High Court judgments, the cost of the packing, which is supplied by the customer free of charge and which does not cost the manufacturer anything, cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. Before arriving at this conclusion, the Karnataka High Court had considered the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. 1983 ELT 1896 (SC). There is no contrary judgment of any other High Court or of the Supreme Court on this point. This Tribunal’s order in the United Glass case made it clear that it was respectfully following the Gujarat and Karnataka High Court’s judgments as per the practice of the Tribunal, regardless of the Tribunal’s own views in the matter, so that, there was uniformity of assessment and discrimination as between different manufacturers was avoided. We do likewise in the present case and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.