new delhi in a breather to the assessees the supreme court has ruled that the cost of secondary packing for the purpose of convenience of customers and transportation of goods cannot be included in the value of the goods for assessment of excise duty we therefore hold that the cost of secondary packing in hessian cloth cannot be included in the value of the goods in terms of section 44 d i of the act central excise act 1944 for the purpose of assessment of excise duty said a bench comprising justice dk jain and justice anil r dave the court partly allowed the appeal of the assessee national leather cloth manufacturing it was engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics the price of goods declared by the assessee in the price list as required under rule 173c of the central excise rules 1944 was approved by the revenue from time to time however in the two revised price lists of november 12 1980 the assessee indicated that prices declared by it contained certain post manufacturing expenses which had to be excluded while computing the value of the fabric for the purpose of assessment to excise duty the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on january 7 1981 thereafter the assessee made a claim of consolidated refund amounting to 401880560 for the period from november 13 1977 to november 12 1980 representing differential excess duty paid by it on various elements of post manufacturing expenses one of the deductions so claimed was on account of cost of material used for packing the final product the central excise department did not responded to such claim then the assessee moved the bombay high court seeking direction for refund along with interest the adjudicating authority on april 12 1984 rejected the claim for excluding the cost of polythene bags printed as well as plain and hessian cloth used for packing the fabrics according to department packing of coated fabrics in polythene bags for delivery to the customers located in bombay as also packing of such rolls in hessian cloth and stitching them into one bundle for dispatch to upcountry customers was in the normal course of trade and therefore there was nothing special about such packing so as to exclude its cost from the value of the fabric then assessee amended the petition to challenge the rejection order of the authority the high court however dismissed the petition and affirmed the order of the department the high court in its order had said the denial of deduction on account of secondary packaging from the assessable value as post manufacturing expenses was justified it is not the case of the assessee that the secondary packing was of a durable nature and returned by the buyer to the assessee