1988 (11) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over deductions on account of various expenses like freight, delivery charges, octroi, turnover tax, and purchase tax.
- Failure to produce evidence of expenses claimed for deductions.
- Applicability of judgments in cases of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International and Assistant Collector v. Madras Rubber Factory.
- Request for remand to Assistant Collector for allowing necessary deductions.
- Consideration of various expenses for deductions and remanding the matter for re-adjudication.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s Associated Pigments Ltd. appealing against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise regarding the assessable value of their products. The dispute centered around deductions claimed by the appellants for expenses like freight, delivery charges, octroi, turnover tax, and purchase tax. The appellants contended that the order-in-original was passed without providing copies of verifications. The appellants relied on judgments like Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. to support their claim for deductions. The respondents, represented by the SDR, acknowledged the permissibility of deductions but raised concerns over the lack of evidence for claimed expenses.

During the hearing, the appellants pressed for deductions including transportation costs, turnover tax, purchase tax, and octroi duty. The Tribunal, referring to the judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International, emphasized the allowance of equalized freight and various deductions from the assessable value. The Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on deductions for transportation costs, taxes, and trade discounts. It was clarified that certain taxes like turnover tax and octroi duty were allowable deductions. However, purchase tax on raw materials was deemed not deductible from the assessable value.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for allowing necessary deductions based on the judgments cited. The appellants were directed to provide evidence of actual expenses within three months. The Tribunal also addressed concerns regarding loading and unloading charges, directing a reasonable view by the Assistant Collector. Additionally, discrepancies in octroi receipts were to be resolved with technical consultation. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication within six months. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, granting the appellants the opportunity to substantiate their claimed deductions.