1999 (1) TMI 494 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether extra realisation on account of amounts collected towards special packing and transportation cost are liable to duty.

Analysis:
The issue in the appeals revolved around determining if the extra realisation on special packing and transportation costs were subject to duty. The appellant argued that assessments were based on ex-factory prices and reopening them to investigate realisations under freight and special packing was impermissible. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE, emphasizing that excise duty is on manufacture, not dealer profit from transportation. Additionally, they referred to Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE, asserting that ex-factory prices should be the basis for valuation. The appellant also relied on CEGAT judgments to support their case.

The respondent countered by stating that the appellant had allegedly misrepresented the goods' value by attributing part of it to transportation and packing costs. They argued that the appellant did not present the ex-factory price before the adjudicating authority. The respondent contended that the differential amount between collected and actual costs should be included in the assessable value. They highlighted that even for ex-factory sales, excess amounts were collected under the mentioned headings.

Upon reviewing the case records and arguments, the Tribunal referred to precedents like Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. and Indian Oxygen case, affirming that assessments should align with ex-factory prices. The Tribunal reiterated that the differential amounts should not factor into the assessable value. Noting the appellants' unchallenged claim of selling goods from both factory gates and depots, the Tribunal found the duty demand on differential amounts unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting relief to the appellants.