2014 (11) TMI 31 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Inclusion of various charges in transaction value of goods - Revenue entertained a view that the noticee was receiving additional consideration over and above the price of their finished goods from the dealers toards - Dealers staff training - Passport Programme - Birthday and Marriage Anniversary Cards - Held that - Dealers staff training programme is a scheme innovated and executed from the head office of the company and not from the factory located at Gurgaon. The same is aimed at providing better technical knowledge about the goods and the soft training to the various field staff, for the purpose of understanding the product and further extending the same to their customers. The appellant is bearing the main expenses and it is only a part of the expenses towards training hall charges, cost of hiring of training equipment which is being recovered from the dealers as a contributory expenses. The said activity of training the staff of the dealers by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a consideration for the sale of the motor cycle to the dealers. Observing again, at the cost of repetition, such training of the staff is absolutely optional for the dealers and it is seen that only a small percentage of the total staff of the dealers have undertaken such training during the relevant period in question. The same being in-connected with the sale of the motor cycle, we find that no favour with the Revenue s stand that the same is a consideration towards the sale of the motor cycle. If the same is a part of the sale value of the vehicle, the same would have been collected from each and every dealer, who would have further collected it from the customers. Based upon the information of Members registered under the passport scheme, the appellants were sending birthday and marriage anniversary cards to the said persons, for which purpose they have a central agency. A part of the said expenses were being recovered by the appellants from their dealers by issuing debit notes to them. - Consideration amount stands already paid by the dealer at the time of clearance of the motor cycle from their factory gate and the said activity of sending of birthday/marriage anniversary card to their customers is an activity unconnected with the sale of the excisable goods - expenses are not connected with the sale of the goods and as such cannot be held to be part of the transaction value. Demand is squarely barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. The appellants have brought on record the correspondence exchanged between them and their Jurisdictional Superintendent in February 2003 itself wherein the entire information was disclosed. Apart from that the audit has taken place for each financial year and all the papers/documents were scrutinized and no objection was raised. From the above, it is the contention of the appellant that no malafide can be attributed to them. we set aside the impugned orders confirming demands and imposing penalties and allow the appeals on merits as also on limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of additional consideration in the assessable value of final products.
2. Validity of demands raised under the extended period of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Additional Consideration in the Assessable Value:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of motorcycles and parts, faced an audit objection where the Revenue alleged that additional consideration received from dealers for dealer staff training, a passport program, and birthday/marriage anniversary cards should be included in the assessable value of their products under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Dealer Staff Training:
The appellants conducted optional training programs for dealer staff, recovering only partial costs related to training hall charges and equipment. The primary expenses were borne by the company. The Tribunal held that these training programs, conducted from the head office and optional for dealers, were not connected to the sale of motorcycles. Thus, the recovered costs could not be considered additional consideration for the sale of goods.

Passport Program:
This program allowed motorcycle buyers to become members for a fee of Rs. 95, granting them benefits like insurance, newsletters, and event invitations. The Tribunal noted that the registration fee was paid by customers, not dealers, and the expenses incurred by the company exceeded the collected fees. The program was optional and provided additional benefits unrelated to the sale of motorcycles. Therefore, the fees collected could not be included in the transaction value.

Birthday and Marriage Anniversary Cards:
The appellants sent cards to customers based on information from the passport program, recovering part of the expenses from dealers. The Tribunal held that these post-sale activities were unconnected to the sale of motorcycles and could not be included in the transaction value.

2. Validity of Demands Raised Under Extended Period of Limitation:
The show cause notice issued on 06/11/08 proposed a demand for the period October 2003 to August 2008, invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellants argued that all schemes were disclosed to the Revenue, evident from correspondence and audits conducted during the relevant period.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected this plea, emphasizing the responsibility of the assessee under the self-assessment scheme. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had disclosed all relevant information to their Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities and that the issue involved a bona fide interpretation of law. Consequently, the demand raised by invoking the extended period was held to be time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders confirming demands and imposing penalties, allowing the appeals on both merits and limitation grounds. The judgment emphasized that the additional considerations alleged by the Revenue were not connected to the sale of motorcycles and that the extended period of limitation was inapplicable due to the bona fide nature of the issue and prior disclosures to the authorities.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 19/09/2014.)