2017 (6) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Non-payment of duty on extra amount collected from customers - debit notes issued towards cylinder charge on rejection of the order from their buyers. - Held that - the appellant had recovered certain amounts from their customers towards cylinder charge on rejection of the order from their buyers. The said recovery is nothing to do with he manufacture and sale of the finished goods, hence, such charges cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. There are sufficient corroborative evidences on record in establishing the fact that the amount recovered against the said debit notes were not additional consideration/extra amount against the goods manufactured and cleared hence, cannot be chargeable to duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA-KKS/120/DAMAN/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals) - DAMAN.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of LDPE coated Paper Boards, received a show cause notice for alleged non-payment of duty on extra amounts collected from customers during a specific period.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that the debit notes issued were not related to the manufacture and sale of finished goods but were for recovering expenses incurred due to rejected orders. Specific instances were provided where the debit notes were issued for costs like cylinder charges and materials used in rejected goods.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the recovered amounts were not part of the goods' value or above the price of the goods.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After examining each debit note and the attached descriptions, the Tribunal found that the amounts recovered were for expenses like cylinder charges and materials used in rejected goods, not related to the assessable value of the finished goods. Specific mention was made of a debit note issued for recovery after goods were rejected by a customer, where the entire sale proceeds were credited back to the customer, and the debit note was for recovery of only a portion of the value.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the amounts recovered against the debit notes were not additional consideration or extra amounts against the goods manufactured and cleared. Therefore, these amounts could not be chargeable to duty. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.