GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are manufacturers of shock absorbers. They have approached this Court projecting a controversy under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Though the writ petition as amended, raises very many issues and contentions, only two points had been pressed before us at the time of arguments. The passage of a decade after the filing of the petition gave a quietus to many an acute dispute which initially existed as between the parties.

(2.) COUNSEL helpfully indicated the points pursued now, by a statement filed before this Court at the time of arguments. The contentions are brought under the headings, "freight and octroi on returned goods", "insurance", "interest", secondary packing, and discount to Asia Automatives. The claims regarding secondary packing and discount to Asia Automatives were the only surviving one. The above claims are dealt with in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order of the Assistant Collector.

(3.) IN respect of claim regarding secondary packing, Counsel attempted to demonstrate its origin and evolution. Initially, the petitioners used to despatch the shock absorbers in plastic covers, of attractive colours or corrugated carton. In respect of that type of packing, no claim for deduction had been made. The petitioners version is that there were repeated requests from dealers to see that the shock absorbers are despatched in wooden crates, other containers could not stand and strain of long distance transport. The petitioners complied with that request according to them. The cost of secondary packing is permissible in the circumstances, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the order of the Apex Court they contend.