2012 (6) TMI 739 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Whether the transportation charges recovered separately under debit notes and not reflected in the invoices are required to be added in the assessable value - Held that - appellants were clearing the goods at factory gate. However, in some cases where the customers are at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Nagpur etc., the goods were transported at the request of the buyer at the railway station at Kolhapur for further transportation and such charges are separately recovered from the customers - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether transportation charges recovered separately under debit notes should be added to the assessable value of goods.
2. Applicability of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
3. Interpretation of the terms "place of removal" and "delivery at a place other than place of removal."
4. Validity of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around whether transportation charges recovered separately under debit notes should be added to the assessable value of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not apply in this scenario as the goods were sold for delivery at Jaisingpur/Kolhapur and not for a place other than the place of removal. The Commissioner found that the transportation charges were actual transportation charges recovered by way of debit notes, and since the goods were sold for delivery at the same place as the place of removal, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

2. The applicability of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was a crucial point of contention. The rule states that if goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation can be excluded from the assessable value if it is charged separately to the buyer and shown in the invoices. However, in this case, since the goods were sold for delivery at the same place as the place of removal, the provisions of Rule 5 were deemed not applicable by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. An important aspect of the judgment was the interpretation of the terms "place of removal" and "delivery at a place other than place of removal." The Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that in this case, the goods were sold for delivery at Jaisingpur/Kolhapur, which was the same as the place of removal, thus negating the application of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. This interpretation played a significant role in determining whether the transportation charges should be added to the assessable value of the goods.

4. The validity of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the goods were required to be delivered at the destination mentioned in the purchase order, and transportation charges were subsequently recovered through debit notes. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, as it was established that the goods were cleared at the factory gate and delivered at the same place as the place of removal, justifying the decision to dismiss the appeal.

Overall, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the findings regarding the applicability of Rule 5 and the nature of the transportation charges in relation to the assessable value of the goods.