ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both the sides for some time on the stay application, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,51,47,781/- for the period January, 2000 to June, 2001 and penalty of equal amount, we proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.
2. It is the case of the department that the appellants herein who are manufacturers of mineral water with brand name “Bisleri” are required to include the deposits collected by them from their customers to the assessable value of the mineral waters, in addition to the printed MRF on the label affixed on 5 litres and 20 litres jars. The extended period of limitation has been applied against the appellants.
3. The case before the Adjudicating authority was that the deposits are not required to be included as the cost of the reusable containers are amortized and included in the cost of the product itself. It is the further contention of the appellants that the situation is covered by the Board’s circular No. 697/13/2003 dated 27th Feb., 2003, wherein the Board has clarified that the earlier clarification of non inclusion of cost of reusable containers applies to goods assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act also; ie. if the cost of reusable containers is amortised and included in the cost of the product itself, the question of adding any further amount towards this account does not arise, except where, Audit of accounts reveals that such cost has not been amortised and included in the value of the product. The appellants also produced before us copy of subsequent order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, wherein for the period prior to the issue of the Board’s circular, it has been made applicable and demand has been dropped after being satisfied that the cost of reusable containers has been amortised. We find that the plea raised before the Adjudicating Authority is similar. We also find force in the submission that the matter has to be reexamined in the light of the February, 2003 circular. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for such consideration to the Commissioner in the light of the submission that the cost of reusable containers has been amortised as evident from the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and in the light of the circular cited supra.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
(Dictated in Court)