1996 (12) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty based on charity amounts shown in the invoice.

Analysis:
The appeal in question concerns the demand of duty regarding amounts listed under the heading of charity in the invoice. The lower authority determined that these amounts should be considered in arriving at the assessable value, despite a previous Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Mohan & Company v. CCE, Madras. The appellant argues that collecting charity amounts has been a longstanding practice since 1984, with no objections raised by the department previously. They assert that these amounts are voluntary and do not impact the goods' price. The appellant provided letters from customers stating that the charity amount was indeed paid voluntarily, although there are no written contracts regarding these payments.

During the proceedings, the appellant emphasized that the charity amounts were voluntarily paid by customers, supported by letters from some customers confirming this fact. The appellant clarified that there were no formal contracts specifying these payments as charity. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal's decision relied on by the appellant was not directly relevant to the central excise perspective. The DR argued that the letters submitted by the appellant should not be considered as substantial evidence and suggested that affidavits should have been filed to support the claim of voluntary payments, followed by verification by the department.

After considering both arguments, the Tribunal noted that the decision in the M/s. Mohan & Company case was pertinent to the issue at hand. However, the appellant's plea would only hold if they could prove that the charity amounts were indeed paid voluntarily by customers. The Tribunal highlighted the need for customer affidavits and evidence of the prevailing trade practice regarding charity collections to support the appellant's claim. Without contracts or sales price lists, the appellant's argument would only gain credibility through customer affidavits and industry practices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to present their case in light of the Tribunal's observations. The appeal was allowed for remand.