Case Details: Amco Batteries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (2025) 37 Centax 420 (Tri.-Bang)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri P.A. Augustian, Member (J) & C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
- Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra, Sr Adv., with Ms Sakhee Mehta, Adv., for the appellants.
- Shri Maneesh Akhoury, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported automobile batteries and cleared them for self, and the issue arose as to whether assessable value was to be determined under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was noted that the batteries were not intended for retail sale for sale, distribution or delivery thereafter without further processing. The packing material in which the goods were supplied was treated as accessories to be used after further processing and deemed to be manufactured. The applicability of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, was also examined. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that clearance for self would not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since the goods were not intended for retail sale, valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the packing material constituted accessories used after further processing and was deemed to be a manufacture. Accordingly, the assessable value was to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the appeals were allowed.
List of Cases Cited
- Charms Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Para 14]
- Ocean Ceramics Ltd v. Commissioner — (2026) 39 Centax 266 (Tri.-LB) — Applied [Paras 10, 15]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 13/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008
