METAL BOX INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company, manufactures various kinds of packing materials, containers including tubes popularly known as aluminium collapsible and rigid tubes. These tubes are manufactured by them in a factory situated at Worli, Bombay. The process of manufacturing collapsible tubes consists of forcing slugs or lumps of aluminium through a die under pressure. This operation known as the extrusion operation is carried out in a machine known as the "Extrusion Press". After the tube is delivered from the extrusion press, it is finished, that is, trimmed to a correct length and its nozzle is threaded to the appropriate specification. The petitioners says that the operation of extrusion is complete at this stage and the resultant product is known as an extruded tube comes into existence. This item is liable for excise duty under Item No. 27(e) of the Tariff as it stood then.

(2.) The said item 27 also included sub-item (f) relating to containers made of aluminium, and there is an explanation purporting to define the expression containers before enactment of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 and it read as under :

(3.) It appears that until April 1, 1970 the excise duty on all aluminium items was charged on the basis of a tariff value determined by the Government. With effect from April 1, 1970, excise duty came to be charged on such products on an ad valorem basis. Some time in 1971-72 the Excise Authorities took up the contention that the assessable value of the said aluminium tubes should be determined by taking into consideration not only the value of the extruded tubes as such but the value of lacquering, coating and printing the same as also the value of the plastic caps which were fitted to the same. The petitioner-company did not agree to this and as a result of which and after some correspondence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being Misc. Writ Petition No. 511 of 1973. The same came to be decided on July 24, 1979 and this Court accepted the contentions advanced by the petitioner and held that the assessable value of the extruded tubes could not, in law, include the cost of coating or printing the said tubes or the costs of the said caps. It appears that as against this judgment, an appeal was preferred by the department but the same was summarily rejected.