2010 (11) TMI 931 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the deduction for the cost of packing claimed to be of durable and returnable nature can be allowed for determining the assessable value of the goods.
2. Whether the deduction of freight on an equalized basis is permissible for determining the assessable value.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The respondent, a manufacturer of "Pasand" brand Vanaspati, sought deductions for equalized freight and the cost of packing for 15 Kgs. tins, claiming the containers were durable and returnable. The Asstt. Commissioner disallowed these deductions due to the absence of an agreement for return of the containers. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed both deductions. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that without an agreement for return, the cost of packing deduction should not be allowed. The Tribunal noted that for packing to be considered returnable, there must be an arrangement for return between the assessee and the customers. As there was no such agreement in this case, the deduction for the cost of packing was disallowed, overturning the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 2:
Regarding the deduction of equalized freight, the Tribunal referred to Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows the exclusion of transportation costs when the price is determined with reference to a place other than the place of removal. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International, the Tribunal upheld the deduction of equalized freight, stating that even if charged on an average basis, transportation costs are excludable. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deduction of equalized freight while setting aside the deduction for the cost of packing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved in the case and provides a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision on each issue, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents.