2004 (12) TMI 566 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of secondary packing charges in the assessable value of Pneumatic Products.
2. Applicability of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act.
3. Bar on demands by time limitation.

Issue 1: Inclusion of secondary packing charges in the assessable value of Pneumatic Products

The appeal concerned the inclusion of secondary packing charges in the assessable value of Pneumatic Products. The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the assessees' contention that collecting secondary packing charges at 1%-2% should not be included in the assessable value. The Commissioner relied on judgments by the Tribunal and the Apex Court in similar circumstances. The Tribunal referred to the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE where it was held that the amount collected as insurance charges but not incurred should not be included in the assessable value. The Commissioner concluded that only manufacturing cost and profits, not the cost of secondary packing or marginal profit, should be added under Section 4(1)(a) of the CE Act.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act

The learned SDR contended that the marginal profit from secondary packing should be added to the assessable value, arguing that the judgments cited were distinguishable. However, the Tribunal found that the assessments were indeed done under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, focusing on the profit margin concerning manufacturing cost and profit at the time of factory gate sale. It was clarified that the supply of goods in secondary packing outside the factory gate and its marginal profits of 1%-2% should not be included, in line with the Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal upheld that the ratio was not distinguishable and rejected the appeal.

Issue 3: Bar on demands by time limitation

The Commissioner had also held that the demands were time-barred, indicating that all facts of the case were known to the Department. The Tribunal concurred with this view, stating that there was no ground to extend the period, and therefore, found no merit in the appeal. As a result, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of including secondary packing charges in the assessable value, the application of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, and the time limitation on demands, providing a detailed insight into the Tribunal's decision-making process and legal reasoning.