1987 (6) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellants seeking admissible deductions to make assessable values ex-factory.
2. Inability to prove ex-factory sales and substantiate expenses for deductions.
3. Request for remand to Assistant Collector for verification of records and deductions.
4. Department's representative agreeing to remand with conditions.
5. Decision on remand for verification of ex-factory sales and deductions based on Supreme Court judgments.
6. Dispute regarding the quantum of discount for damaged goods.
7. Final decision allowing the appeals by way of remand.

Analysis:

1. The appellants in the case sought admissible deductions from their ex-outstation selling center prices to align the assessable values with ex-factory prices. They argued that the price lists submitted were ex-factory, emphasizing the need for adjustments in the assessable values.

2. Lower authorities contended that the appellants failed to prove the existence of ex-factory sales and lacked substantiation for expenses like transport and handling charges. This lack of evidence led to a dispute regarding the validity of the deductions claimed by the appellants.

3. The appellants presented evidence, including correspondence with the Superintendent and a willingness to provide further verification to establish the ex-factory nature of their sales. They requested a remand to the Assistant Collector for a thorough review of their records and deductions.

4. The department's representative did not object to the appellants' request for remand but suggested the necessity of a Chartered Accountant's certificate to validate the claimed expenses for deductions.

5. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed to remand the matters to the Assistant Collector. The verification process would determine the presence of ex-factory sales, allowing for adjustments based on Supreme Court judgments regarding deductions from ex-outstation selling center prices.

6. An additional point of dispute arose concerning the discount for damaged goods cleared by the appellants. While the lower authorities allowed a minimum discount of 25%, the appellants argued for higher discounts based on the varying nature and extent of damage on different products.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, endorsing the appellants' request for verification of deductions and discounts, ensuring a fair and reasonable assessment of the assessable values.