2009 (5) TMI 663 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Insurance charges - demand on the ground that appellant have received more insurance charges from their customers then the actual amount spent by them - Held that - Any excess recovery on account of the insurance activity cannot be added to the assessable value. It is not the Revenue s case that the assessable value adopted in other cases where no insurance service was being provided is depressed or incorrect. There is also no other evidence on record indicating that such recovery of more insurance amount was on account of the value of the cleared products - Reliance placed in the case of BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 1997 (7) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . As the appeal has been allowed on merits the appellants plea of the demand being barred by limitation is not being considered. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty based on excess insurance charges.
2. Inclusion of excess insurance charges in the assessable value of goods.
3. Application of extended period of limitation for raising demand.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a demand of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 26,676 against the appellant for allegedly receiving more insurance charges from customers than the actual amount spent during a specific period. The lower authorities confirmed the demand invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A.

2. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that they only undertook insurance activities for certain upcountry customers who insisted on transit insurance. Referring to precedents like Baroda Electric Meters and M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd., the Tribunal held that any excess amount recovered for insurance services should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not undertake insurance activities for all clearances, as evidenced by sample invoices, and the assessable value for those clearances was not disputed by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the excess insurance charges were related to the value of cleared products. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was unjustified and set it aside, along with the penalty imposed. Since the appeal was allowed on merits, the plea of the demand being barred by limitation was not considered.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between insurance charges and assessable value of goods, emphasizing that excess insurance charges should not automatically be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and providing consequential relief.