2017 (3) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - transportation charges - whether transportation charges have been included in the assessable value at the place of removal or not? - Held that - freight and insurance incurred upto the depot has been included in the assessable value for payment of duty on clearance from the factory. It is only the freight recovered from the customers for delivery at their premises that is itemised separately and not included in the assessable value - In terms of amendment of place of removal with effect from 28th September 1996, the assessable value is that which is inclusive of costs upto place of removal which is the Taloja storage premises with the duty thereof to be discharged at the factory itself. It would appear from the records that this was being scrupulously followed by the appellant - We do not, therefore, find any justification for adding the freight and insurance incurred thereafter in the assessable value in the absence of legal requirement to do so. There is no evidence or finding of suppression of facts or other ingredient for invoking the extended period. In these circumstances, the bar of limitation will not extend even to the last month covered in the demand. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of demand of duty on transportation charges.
2. Adjustment of duty due against excess paid during a specific period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality and propriety of demand of duty on transportation charges

The dispute revolves around the demand of duty on transportation charges, which the appellant claims to have included in the assessable value at the 'place of removal.' The change in the definition of 'place of removal' by the Finance Act, 1996 expanded the scope, incorporating locations beyond the factory or approved storage place. The appellant, a manufacturer of printing industry materials, contends that they included freight and insurance costs in the assessable value as per directions from excise authorities. The invoices raised by the appellant show a separate itemization of duty, freight, and insurance, indicating the inclusion of transportation costs in the assessable value. The appellant agreed to provisional assessment and paid the netted amount of duty differential from July 1998 to December 1998, which was objected to by the authorities. The dispute also involves the separate itemization of freight and insurance in customer invoices and its inclusion in the assessable value.

Issue 2: Adjustment of duty due against excess paid during a specific period

The second issue concerns the adjustment of duty paid in excess against duty short-paid from July 1998 to December 1998. The finalization order and correspondence indicate that provisional assessment was proposed in December 1998. However, the notice issued on 4th February 2002 for adjudication by the Commissioner is deemed a breach of jurisdiction as the facts were known to authorities since December 1998. The issue of limitation is significant here, as there is no evidence of suppression to evade duty, and the normal limitation period does not extend to the notice period. The absence of a finding of net short-payment suggests that any adjustments can be considered technical lapses. Additionally, the issue covers non-payment of duty on freight and insurance recovered from customers, where the assessable value was meticulously followed by the appellant, and there was no legal requirement to add post-depot freight and insurance costs. The appellant's correspondence with the range officer from November 1996, acknowledged in official letters, and the lack of findings for invoking the extended period indicate a lack of justification for adding these costs to the assessable value.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order based on the appellant's success regarding the limitation issue. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal and factual aspects surrounding the demand of duty on transportation charges and the adjustment of duty due against excess paid during the specified period, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.