2002 (8) TMI 673 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Assessment of additional consideration on advances received for fabricated steel structurals used in electricity distribution towers.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of fabricated steel structurals, received advances ranging from 10% to 15% of the value of specific orders for constructing electricity distribution towers. The adjudication proceedings alleged that these advances should be treated as additional consideration, and notional interest on the advance amounts should be added to the contract price to determine the assessable value of the goods sold.

2. The adjudicating authority initially accepted the assessee's argument that the advances were not additional consideration and did not lead to any indirect benefit from the buyer due to notional interest. The authority noted that the deposits were made according to standard contract terms, with some payments received long after the sale of goods, implying that part of the payment remained in credit, resulting in a loss of interest for the assessee on the goods sold.

3. The Revenue appealed the decision to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara, who observed that the department failed to prove that notional interest on advances affected the sale price. The Commissioner cited a judgment by the Apex Court in a previous case, highlighting that the issue was decided against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

4. Upon further review, the Appellate Tribunal found that the question of adding to the sale price due to advances arises only if the sale price is depressed below the normal price because of the advances. It was noted that no evidence was presented to show that the contracted prices were lower than normal prices because of the advances. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale prices were not impacted by the 10% to 15% advances received. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, stating that the revenue authorities were engaging in unnecessary and vexatious proceedings, and subsequently rejected the appeal.