9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the mark-up charge of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant company from its customers, DGS & D, should be included in the assessable value of motor vehicles manufactured and sold by the appellants. Analysis: The dispute arose from a rate contract between the appellant company and DGS & D for the supply of motor vehicles. The appellant charged a mark-up of Rs. 1,000/- per vehicle to DGS & D for supplies to "Civil Indentors" as consideration for after-sales services provided by dealers. The mark-up amount was reimbursed to dealers for these services. The issue was whether this mark-up charge should be included in the assessable value of the vehicles. The Assistant Collector disallowed abatement of mark-up charges as a trade discount, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that mark-up charges were for after-sales services. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants but referred the issue to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions in other cases. The rate contract clauses specified the basis of pricing, mark-up charges for civil indentors, and after-sales service obligations. The Tribunal analyzed these clauses, noting that mark-up charges were for after-sales services and warranty coverage. Previous Tribunal decisions held mark-up charges as part of the assessable value based on the Supreme Court's interpretation that expenses contributing to an article's value should be included. The Tribunal disagreed with the referring Bench's view that mark-up charges should not be included in the assessable value, citing the Supreme Court's stance on after-sales service charges. In a separate case involving the same appellant, the Tribunal distinguished between pre-delivery inspection charges and after-sales service costs, ruling that the latter should not be included in the assessable value. However, in the present case, the mark-up charges were deemed part of the contract price for after-sales services and warranty continuation provided by the manufacturer. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal affirmed that the mark-up charges should be added to the assessable value of the vehicles sold under the DGS & D rate contract. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. This detailed analysis showcases the complexities involved in determining the inclusion of mark-up charges in the assessable value of goods, emphasizing the significance of contractual obligations, after-sales services, and legal precedents in reaching a decision.
|
