Cost of durable and returnable packing material does not form part of assessable value. (Refer Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1998, Commissioner vs. Swil Ltd.) (Since the packing material is to be returned by the buyer).

Dharmada amount paid voluntarily (by buyer) and used for Charitable purpose would not form part of the assessable value. (Refer Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 1992)

Amounts collected as ‘charity’ from customers not includible in assessable value (so held in order against CEGAT order No. 402/97-A dt. 4-3-1997.) Appeal to SC by revenue dismissed since the stake involved was few hundreds, but the court left open the issue involved.

There can be different assessable value for products sold in different areas of country, Civil Appeal No. 1869 of 1999.

This can be referred to find sale price of all standard MRP inclusive of all taxes goods and hence different sales tax liability in different areas.

Bodies of buses and trucks built on duty paid chassis covered by 87.07 of Central Excise (Bodies for motor vehicles). But under sales tax the same is treated either as sale or works contract. (Refer Civil appeal nos. 649-51 of 1998).

Interest notionally accrued on advances taken from customers is not includible in assessable value. (Refer civil appeal no. D-19872 of 1998 Comm. of Central Excise in case of ISPL Ind. Ltd) But under BST since no interest is charged in sales invoice, the question of inclusion or exclusion does not arise.

In view of facility of making week end debit entry (in excise account) there is no question of clandestine removal of goods since due to defects in computer, after lift of cancelled invoice is furnished fresh invoices are issued and revenue too accepted there was no clearance of goods against the original (first) defective invoice. (Tisco vs Comm. of Central Excise 154 ELT 639).

Excess amount of freight and transport charges recovered from customer is not includible in the assessable value. The SC dismissed civil appeal no. 2659 of 1998 (filed by the Commissioner Central Excise) since the counsel for the Commissioner stated that as the sum involved is very small, it is not worthwhile for the court to spend time (but the court in case of issue involving ‘Dharmada’, though dismissed the appeal before it on the plea of Govt. counsel, the same type of treatment/order is not passed in case of ‘freight’). (Refer Subham Polymers vs. Comm. of Central Excise, Nagpur).

The S.C. dismissed civil appeal no.2264 of 1986 filed by manufacturer M/s Udaipur Cement Works. The appellate Tribunal in its order had held that cost of packing material through durable and returnable, is includable in assessable value since no evidence in form of agreement between assessee and buyer about returnability of the packing material is placed on record. The Tribunal did not accept the plea that duty having been paid at appropriate rate on packing material and now duty is to levied on value of cement only. Since duty on cement packed in bags is levied on value of cement which includes value of packing material and not on value of gunny bags as such. In contract under BST the Tribunal in ACC’s case has held that resale of HDPE bags (in which cement is packed) is allowable.

Any statutory right unlike a fundamental right (under part III of the Constitution) can be waived by the subject. A person was intercepted at customs barrier at Nepalganj Rd. on his way from Nepal to India and 41 Rs.500/- notes were confiscated (absolutely) and personal penalty Rs.500/- levied. The person appealed only for removal of the penalty Rs.500/-. The CEGAT removed the penalty and observed appeal was a statutory right (unlike fundamental right under part III of the Constitution) and the affected person can waive the right and the revenue cannot insist the person to exercise this right. We have scores of instances where revenue tried to calculate negative set off to be deducted from normal set off especially in case of interstate branch transfers. Fortunately the issue is now settled and the negative set off is to be ignored. (Refer Comm. of Customs, Lucknow vs. Shakeel Ahmad 154 ELT 640 – Delhi Tribunal).