2013 (9) TMI 58 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of Freight charges - whether the freight charges collected by the respondents for return journey of the vehicles used for transportation of explosives is required to be added in the assessable value of the same or not - Held that - Two-wheelers manufactured by the appellants are transported in specialized vehicles. Expenses incurred for the onward journey are to be allowed. There is no reason to deny the expenses incurred for return journey of those vehicles which are specially designed and which cannot carry any other goods on its return - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether freight charges for return journey of vehicles used for transporting explosives should be added to the assessable value.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the freight charges collected by the respondents for the return journey of vehicles used for transporting explosives are required to be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal's decision in Majestic Auto Ltd. vs. CCE was crucial in this matter. The Tribunal had ruled that transportation expenses for the return journey of specialized vehicles, which cannot carry any other goods on their return, should be allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the expenses incurred for the return journey of such vehicles. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on this decision to grant relief to the respondents.

The Revenue, in their appeal, failed to provide any substantial argument against the applicability of the Tribunal's decision in the present case. Instead, they merely referred to a circular by the Boards. The Tribunal, considering the precedent set by its previous decision, found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the respondents regarding the inclusion of freight charges for the return journey of vehicles used for transporting explosives in the assessable value.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of precedent and the application of legal principles to specific cases. The decision highlights the need for a substantive argument when challenging established rulings and the significance of considering the unique circumstances of each case in determining the assessable value of goods.