1992 (8) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Central Excise duty.
2. Wooden packing charges.
3. Deductions for accessories (Daizy Wheel, Carbon Ribbon, Correction Tape).
4. Installation and training charges.
5. Freight charges.
6. Short payment of duty.

Summary:

1. Deduction of Central Excise Duty:
The appellant claimed a deduction of duty at 20% instead of the permissible 10%. The Assistant Collector disallowed this, and the appellant did not press this point before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' finding, citing the Finance Act, 1982, and the Supreme Court's judgment in Samrat International. The plea of limitation was also dismissed.

2. Wooden Packing Charges:
The Assistant Collector found that wooden packing was essential for making electronic typewriters marketable and disallowed the deduction. The Tribunal remanded the matter for further examination to determine if the wooden packing is necessary for putting the goods in the wholesale market at the factory gate, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Ponds India.

3. Deductions for Accessories:
The Assistant Collector disallowed deductions for Daizy Wheel, Carbon Ribbon, and Correction Tape, considering them essential components of electronic typewriters. The Tribunal agreed that Daizy Wheel is an essential part and its value should be included, but Carbon Ribbon and Correction Tape are consumables and should not be included. The Tribunal modified the lower authority's findings accordingly.

4. Installation and Training Charges:
The Assistant Collector disallowed these charges, considering them as post-sale services. The Tribunal found that installation charges are optional and should not be included in the value of excisable goods, subject to evidence of actual expenses. Similar observations were made for training charges.

5. Freight Charges:
The Assistant Collector allowed deductions for freight charges subject to evidence and verification. The Additional Collector found these charges non-uniform and disallowed them. The Tribunal agreed with the Assistant Collector's findings, allowing deductions subject to verification.

6. Short Payment of Duty:
A show cause notice was issued for short payment of duty amounting to Rs. 69,006.71 due to various deductions claimed by the appellant. The Additional Collector confirmed the demand, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no substance in the plea of limitation.

Additional Points:
- Cash and other discounts were disallowed by the lower authority due to lack of evidence of uniformity. The Tribunal allowed these discounts, referencing the Madras High Court's judgment in UOI v. S.S. and Bros.
- Central Sales Tax deduction was disallowed as it was not payable by the appellant, referencing Section 4(4)(d)(ii).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities on most issues, remanded the matter of wooden packing charges for further examination, and allowed deductions for installation, training, and certain discounts subject to evidence. Appeals were disposed of accordingly.