2017 (1) TMI 1407 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - freight realized from the buyers at the consignment agents depot - includibility - Held that - Revenue has not brought to record whether, by any means, freight paid by the buyer to the transporter has benefited the manufacturer. The law relating to excise being revenue-elastic in its character, elasticity of Revenue has not been jeopardized. There is no flow back of the freight aspect proved by Revenue showing that same has come to the manufacturer in disguise - assessable value declared by the appellant remains untouched - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods for excise duty - Inclusion of freight realized from buyers at consignment agent's depot in assessable value.

Paragraph 1: The judgment revolves around the dispute regarding the inclusion of freight realized from buyers at the consignment agent's depot in the assessable value of goods cleared by the manufacturer. The issue is whether the freight paid by the buyers directly to the transporter should be considered in the valuation for excise duty purposes.

Paragraph 2: The appellant argued that all sales at the consignment agent's place were on a "freight to pay" basis, indicating that no freight amount was realized by the appellant as it was directly paid by the buyers to the transporter. This argument is crucial in determining the impact of freight payment on the assessable value of the goods.

Paragraph 3: After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal considered the absence of evidence brought by the Revenue to demonstrate how the freight paid by the buyers to the transporter benefited the manufacturer. The judgment highlights the importance of establishing a direct link between the freight payment and any benefit derived by the manufacturer to impact the assessable value of goods for excise duty purposes.

Paragraph 4: The Tribunal emphasized that the revenue aspect of excise law is characterized by elasticity, and in the absence of evidence showing any flow back of the freight amount to the manufacturer, the assessable value declared by the appellant remains unaffected. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant based on the lack of proof regarding the realization of freight by the manufacturer and its impact on the assessable value of the goods.