2006 (6) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Transportation cost - includibility - Held that - The accounts for the relevant period has been scrutinized by a Chartered Accountant and he has given a certificate to the effect that the transportation charges cover the expenditure incurred for transport from the premises of dealers to their customers. This payment has been paid to M/s. Nandi Transports. These facts were not before the Original Authority - the matter is remanded only for the limited purpose of examining the documents relating to freight charges, for decision within three months from the date of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demands including duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods
- Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods
- Discrepancies in physical stock of PVC pipes
- Demand of differential duty on freight/transportation charges
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC
- Applicability of transportation charges in assessable value

Confirmation of Demands:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tirupati, confirming demands including duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods. The investigations revealed discrepancies in the physical stock of PVC pipes at the factory premises, leading to allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods to evade Central Excise duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed various demands, including duty amounts, interest under Section 11AB, and a penalty under Section 11AC on the appellant-unit.

Demand of Differential Duty on Freight Charges:
A significant demand of Rs. 19,33,239/- was made on account of freight charges collected from customers over and above the value at which the pipes were sold at depots. The appellants argued that transportation charges should not be included in the assessable value as they relate to post-removal activities. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for further verification of documents related to freight charges, emphasizing that collected freight charges are not includible in the assessable value.

Imposition of Penalty and Confiscation:
The appellants had already paid the duty amounts before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, leading them to argue that no penalty should be levied. The Tribunal agreed and set aside the penalty under Section 11AC and the demand of interest under Section 11AB. However, the matter was remanded for verification of documents related to freight charges. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of duty on shortages noticed but emphasized that collected freight charges should not be included in the assessable value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the matter within three months from the date of the order. The decision highlighted the importance of excluding collected freight charges from the assessable value and emphasized the need for thorough verification of documents related to transportation charges.