2007 (8) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Comm.(A) held that facilities provided include use of office space & equipment in the form of infrastructural facilities cannot be construed as expenses for loading & filing of tankers prior to delivery & sale Hence such charges are not includible in assessable value

Summary

Issues involved:
Revenue appeal regarding addition of charges to assessable value based on facilities provided to tankers before delivery and sale.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2005-C.E., which added charges to the assessable value for facilities provided to tankers before delivery and sale. The Commissioner of Excise (Appeals) found that the facilities, including office space and equipment, cannot be considered expenses for loading and filling of tankers. The impugned order confirmed a demand, interest liability, and penalty for alleged suppression of assessable value related to clearances to a buyer. The facilities provided were deemed to be office facilities, not connected with filling activities. The Commissioner noted that no effort was made to demonstrate a link between the charges and manufacturing expenses, or to show any nexus between the payments received and the prices charged to the buyer. The absence of evidence showing a connection between the charges and loading/filling expenses led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the findings of the Commissioner. It was concluded that the Revenue failed to establish a proximity between the charges and the infrastructural facilities provided. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving a direct link between additional charges and loading/filling expenses before making any additions to the assessable value. The decision highlighted the necessity of conducting investigations to establish a case of suppression of assessable value, which was not done in this instance. The Tribunal's decision underscored the significance of demonstrating a clear nexus between charges and expenses to justify any adjustments to the assessable value.