http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S. YATINDRANATH SHUKLA & CO, KANPUR ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1997

BENCH: S.C. SEN, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SRINIVASAN, J.      These appeals  are directed  against the  order of  the Customs Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Civil appeal  Nos. 3030-31 of 1989 are by the assessee while the other  appeals are  by the Revenue.  Two questions arise for consideration.   One  of them has already been concluded by the judgment of this Court Government of India and others Versus Madras Rubber Factory and others (1995) 4 S.C.C. 349. In that  case it  has been  held that  for  the  purpose  of levying duty  under the  provisions of  the Act the value of the packing  materials should  also be included to arrive at the assessable  value of  the excisable goods.  The Tribunal has directed the exclusion of the value of packing materials and thus the Revenue is aggrieved.  In view of the aforesaid judgment of  this Court,  the appeals  of  the  Revenue  are hereby allowed to that extent. 2.   The  other  question  which  arises  for  consideration relates to  the mathod  of arriving  at the value of chewing tobacco per kilogram under Notification No. 35/79 C.E. dated 1.3.1979 as  amended by  Notification No.151/79  C.E.  dated 30.3.1979.   The Notification  in so  for as  it is relevant reads as follows:      Exemption to  chewing tobacco.-  In      excise of  the powers  conferred by      sub-rule  (1)  of  Rule  8  of  the      Central  Excise  Rules  1944,  read      with sub-section  (3) of  Section 3      of the  Additional Duties of Excise      (Goods of  Special Importance) Act,      1958  (58  of  1957),  the  Central      Government hereby  exempts  chewing      tobacco    of    the    descreption      specified in colum (1) of the Table      hereto annexed  and  falling  under      sub-item 11 (5) of Item No.4 of the      First  Schedule   to  the   Central      Excise and  Salt  Act  1944  (1  of      1944) from  so much  of the duty of      excise leviable  thereon both under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    the Central  Excise and  Salt  Act,      1944 (1 of 1944) and the Additional      Duties of  Excise (Goods of Special      Importance) Act  1957 (58  of 1957)      as  is   in  excess   of  the  duty      specified in corresponding entry in      column (2) thereof. THE TABLE ------------------------------------------------------------ Description                          Rate of duty ------------------------------------------------------------ Chewing tobacco of which the value per one kilogram - (i) does not exceed rupees ten (ii) exceeds rupees ten                   fifteen per cent                                          and valorem                                          Twenty five percent                                          ad valorem 3.   The contention  of the  assessee s that for arriving at the value per kilogram of chewing tobacco the total value of the entire  package should be divided by the total weight of the package.   The  contention of  the Revenue  is that  the value of  the tobacco  has to  be arrived at by dividing the value of  the total package divided by the net weight of the tobacco after  excluding the weight of the packing materials from the  weight of  the total package.  It is argued by the Revenue  that   the  Notification   uses  the  expression  " chewing tobacco"  and speaks  of  value  per  one  kilogram. According to  learned counsel  it would  mean tobacco before its being packed and the weight thereof. 4.   There is  no merit  in this  contention.   When for the purpose of  assessing the  value and  levying the  duty, the total value  of the  package is taken as assessable value of the goods  under Section 4 of the Act, the same method shall be applied  for assessing  the value  of the  goods for  the purpose of  exemption.   We accept  the  contention  of  the assessees in  this regard  and hold  that for the purpose of exemption notification  the value of the chewing tobacco per kilogram shall  be arrived at by dividing the total value of the package  in its  entirety by  the total  weight  of  the package. 5.   The view  expressed by  the Tribunal to the contrary is erroneous and therefore the order of the Tribunal is set  aside to  that extent.   The  appeals  are  disposed accordingly.  The Assistant Collector shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the above decision.