2018 (3) TMI 1051 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - notional interest - whether the notional interest on the advance deposit collected by the appellant against the supply of goods is includible in the assessable value of the final product or otherwise? - Held that - there is no dispute in the fact that the goods supplied by the appellant are not uniform/standard every machine is a tailor made machine. Therefore if the advance deposit is not collected and at the time of supplies if the buyer refuses to purchase the machine there will be no security to the appellant therefore the reason of taking advance deposit towards the supply of tailor made machine is justified - The department also could not adduce any evidence to establish that the price of the machineries are influenced by taking the advance deposit - notional interest should not be included - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether notional interest on advance deposit collected against supply of goods is includible in assessable value of final product.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case revolved around the inclusion of notional interest on advance deposits in the assessable value of final products. The appellant contended that the advance deposit collected was for security purposes, as they supplied tailor-made machines with no comparable prices available. The appellant argued that the notional interest should not be included in the assessable value as it did not influence the price of the goods, citing a relevant Supreme Court judgment. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the goods supplied were tailor-made and not uniform, making the advance deposit crucial for security in case of buyer refusal. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the price of the machines was influenced by the notional interest on advance deposits. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of notional interest in the assessable value was not justified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, especially when dealing with unique or tailor-made products. It emphasizes the need for concrete evidence to support any claims regarding the influence of advance deposits on pricing. The decision underscores the significance of legal precedents in guiding assessments of assessable values in indirect tax matters.