2011 (1) TMI 1025 - AT - Central Excise

Selling and distribution expenses - Whether form the part of assessable value? - Held that - Selling and distribution expenses shall not form part of assessable value when they are captively consumed by the assessee, appeals filed by the Revenue deserve no merits. no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, the same are confirmed, appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Whether selling and distribution expenses are to be included in the assessable value of goods captively consumed for further production.

Analysis:
The main issue in this judgment revolves around whether the cost of selling and distribution expenses should be included in the assessable value of goods captively consumed by the assessee for further production. The Revenue argued that such expenses should be included based on a previous Tribunal order and CAS-4 guidelines. On the contrary, the respondents contended that selling and distribution expenses should not be included, citing a previous Tribunal order and a Supreme Court judgment in their favor. The Tribunal carefully examined the submissions from both sides and found that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not relevant to the current matters. They noted that in the cases cited by the Revenue, the assessable value was available with the assessee, unlike the current situation. In contrast, the case laws cited by the respondents were deemed applicable, stating that selling and distribution expenses should not be part of the assessable value when goods are captively consumed. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the Revenue lacked merit and upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that selling and distribution expenses are not to be included in the assessable value of goods captively consumed for further production. The judgment highlighted the importance of the specific circumstances of each case in determining the inclusion of expenses in the assessable value. The decision was based on a careful analysis of relevant case laws and guidelines, emphasizing the need for consistency and adherence to legal principles in such matters.