1991 (7) TMI 86 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - Packing charges - Price list showing price ex-works - Interest on credit to customers - Cost of ageing

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for deductions on account of post-manufacturing expenses for six items.
- Admissibility of deductions for special packing expenses.
- Admissibility of deductions for carriage forward charges.
- Claim for selling agency commission deduction.
- Claim for interest on credit to customers deduction.
- Claim for aging expenses deduction.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a company manufacturing aluminum products seeking deductions for post-manufacturing expenses. The company filed a price list claiming deductions for various items, which were initially rejected. The company filed a writ petition, and after subsequent orders, the matter was heard again. The court considered the admissibility of deductions claimed under six headings, including special packing expenses, carriage forward charges, selling agency commission, interest on credit to customers, and aging expenses.

The court first addressed the claim for special packing expenses. The company argued that special packing was necessary due to the sensitive nature of the products. However, the court found that such packing was a normal practice to avoid damage, making it ineligible for deduction as a post-manufacturing expense.

Regarding carriage forward charges, the company claimed these as transport costs for goods delivered to customers. The court noted that the pricing terms were "Ex-works," indicating that transportation costs were included in the sale price. As a result, the company could not claim deductions for carriage forward charges as post-manufacturing expenses.

The claim for selling agency commission deduction was conceded by the company's counsel, acknowledging its lack of merit. The court rejected the claim for interest on credit to customers deduction, stating that interest losses due to delayed payments could not be excluded from the assessable value of goods sold.

Lastly, the court considered the aging expenses deduction claim. The company argued that aging processes added value to the products. However, the court found that aging was part of the manufacturing process just before packing and forwarding, making it ineligible for deduction as a post-manufacturing expense.

Ultimately, the court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the petition with costs as none of the contentions raised by the company were found to have merit.