2011 (6) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Assessable value of texturised yarn - Hamli Charges - The new Section 4(4)(d)(i) declares that in computing the value of an excisable article, the cost of packing shall be included, the provision should be construed as confined to primary packing and as not extending to secondary packing - Inevitably the legal provisions do not support the Revenue s contention that Hamali Charges are to be considered as manufacturing expenses providing it as a part of assessable value - Thus, the Hamali Charges are not part of assessable value and therefore demand is not sustainable - The question of imposing penalties under various provisions also is not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of Hamali Charges in the assessable value.
2. Imposition of penalties under various provisions.

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Hamali Charges in the assessable value:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of Hamali Charges in the assessable value of goods manufactured by M/s. Rama Crimpers Pvt. Ltd. The original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand for a differential duty on the extra sum collected by the company as Hamali Charges from customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order. However, the Commissioner, Surat-II filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that Hamali Charges should be included in the assessable value based on the precedent set by the Apex Court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. The Tribunal carefully examined the case records and submissions from both the assessee and the Revenue. It was noted that while the Revenue relied on the Bombay Tyre case, the Tribunal found that Hamali Charges were essentially post-manufacturing expenses, akin to labor charges, and were incurred after the goods had left the factory premises. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Referring to the judgment in the Bombay Tyre case, the Tribunal concluded that Hamali Charges did not qualify as an eligible deduction under the relevant provisions. Various categories of post-manufacturing expenses were detailed, and it was established that Hamali Charges did not fall within these categories. Consequently, the Tribunal held that Hamali Charges should not be considered as part of the assessable value, rendering the demand unsustainable.

2. Imposition of penalties under various provisions:
In addition to the dispute over the assessable value, the issue of imposing penalties under various provisions was also addressed in the case. The Tribunal, having determined that Hamali Charges were not includable in the assessable value, further ruled that the demand based on including these charges was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the imposition of penalties under various provisions was not warranted. The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue on these grounds, emphasizing that since the demand itself was not sustainable due to the exclusion of Hamali Charges from the assessable value, the question of imposing penalties did not hold. The decision was pronounced in court, thereby bringing the matter to a close.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, through a detailed analysis and reference to relevant legal provisions and precedents, resolved the issues surrounding the inclusion of Hamali Charges in the assessable value and the imposition of penalties under various provisions in favor of the assessee, Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR.