2005 (9) TMI 466 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on excess recovery of interest on delayed payments.
2. Demand of duty on excess recovery of transportation charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of duty on excess recovery of interest on delayed payments
The case involved the confirmation of a duty demand against the appellant, a steel manufacturer, for excess recovery of interest on delayed payments from customers. The appellant argued that the interest charges were on an equalized basis and not additional consideration towards the goods. They cited a Supreme Court case to support their argument. The Commissioner, however, held that the interest on delayed payments constituted additional consideration and should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner's findings and observed that the price of goods for cash and credit sales was the same, indicating that the interest charged did not influence the assessable value. The Tribunal concluded that the demand of duty on this ground was not sustainable. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the demand was barred by limitation as the issue had been previously adjudicated without any review or appeal, thus ruling in favor of the appellant on this issue.

Issue 2: Demand of duty on excess recovery of transportation charges
The second issue involved the demand of duty on excess recovery of transportation charges by the appellant. The Commissioner held that the deduction claimed by the appellant was higher than the actual freight expenses incurred, and transportation from one plant to another was claimed as a deduction from the assessable value. The Tribunal noted contradictory findings between the appellant and the adjudicating authority regarding the deduction claimed and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after clarifying the factual position. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the issue in light of a Supreme Court decision and allowed the appellant to raise other issues before the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on the demand of duty on excess recovery of interest on delayed payments and remanding the issue of excess recovery of transportation charges for further consideration by the Commissioner.