2018 (6) TMI 1135 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of handing charges and Service Charges from their customers in the assessable value - time limitation - Held that - The appellant could not produce the evidences, like conditions of sale, purchase orders, relevant invoices, in support of their claim that handing and other charges are post manufacturing/removal expense, hence, not includible in assessable value - there is no substance in the contention of Ld. Advocate for the appellant on merit of the case. Time Limitation - Held that - Appellant could not able to rebut the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the aspect of limitation as no evidence was produced to show that the recovery of handing charges and other charges from the customers was disclosed/informed to the department during the relevant period - the demand has been rightly restricted to the period of five years. Matter remanded to the adjudicating Authority to re-quantify the demand accordingly and arrive at the quantum of penalty thereafter - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of handling and service charges in assessable value
- Bar on demand due to limitation period

Inclusion of handling and service charges in assessable value:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Acid Slurry and detergent powder, faced a demand notice for not including "handling charges" and "service charges" in the assessable value of finished goods. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that these charges are post-manufacturing expenses and should not be included in the assessable value. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence like conditions of sale or purchase orders to substantiate that these charges are post-manufacturing expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's argument regarding the inclusion of charges in the assessable value.

Bar on demand due to limitation period:
The Revenue contended that the demand should be restricted to a five-year period and invoked the extended period due to non-disclosure of charges to the department. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the demand should be limited to five years but remanded the case for quantification. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to produce evidence showing disclosure of charges to the department during the relevant period. While agreeing with the restriction of demand to five years, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating Authority for re-quantification and determination of penalty. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for quantification of the demand and subsequent penalty calculation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to restrict the demand to a five-year period but remanded the case for quantification and penalty assessment. The appellant's argument regarding the exclusion of handling and service charges from the assessable value lacked evidentiary support, leading to the dismissal of their claim on this issue.