1988 (5) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value calculation based on discounts and additional considerations, classification of buyers for pricing, deduction of post-manufacturing expenses.

Assessable Value Calculation:
The appellants had two tiers of customers: authorised dealers and buyers of these dealers. The lower authorities considered the higher sale price from the second tier buyers, but this was incorrect as the authorised dealers were not proven to be related persons. The agreements with the dealers were standard dealership agreements, making them independent buyers. The interest-free deposit taken from one dealer was considered an additional consideration, affecting the discount calculation. The net discount after considering the deposit should be used for assessable value calculation.

Classification of Buyers for Pricing:
The authorised dealers received a higher discount than the buyers in the second tier. The court held that the dealers in the second tier, along with consumers, constituted a separate class of buyers. The discount given to each buyer based on volume of purchases was legitimate. The actual discount given to each consumer/dealer should be accepted for pricing, and uniformity of discount was not necessary.

Deduction of Post-Manufacturing Expenses:
The appellants claimed post-manufacturing expenses deduction as their sales were ex-depot. While the claim was admissible in principle, there was no formal claim for such deductions in the proceedings. The appellants did not specifically request deductions for post-manufacturing expenses, and the court was not required to consider this deduction in the absence of a direct claim.

Conclusion:
The lower orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Assistant Collector was directed to re-determine the assessable values based on the court's observations. The appellants were entitled to consequential benefits following the revised assessment.