1998 (1) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against common order on refund claims for transportation expenses.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves appeals against a common order by the Collector (Appeals) related to refund claims filed by the assessee against two separate orders by the Assistant Collector concerning transportation expenses. The refund claims covered various expenses included in the assessable value, leading to alleged excess duty payments by the assessee.

For the period from 12-5-1973 to 7-1-1975, the assessee initiated a lawsuit in the High Court of Bombay to recover excess duty paid due to the inclusion of transportation expenses in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector's orders calculated the refund amount based on the decree from the High Court.

The Assistant Collector allowed refunds for various expenses such as freight, loading/unloading, wages, bonuses, contributions, repairs, maintenance, insurance, and depreciation. However, only 50% deduction was granted for certain claimed expenses. In the subsequent appeal, the Collector (Appeals) allowed full deduction for all expenses except breakage of bottles and shells, which led to the Department filing appeals against this decision.

The appellant contested the admissibility of expenses related to repairs, maintenance of shells, salesmen's commissions, helpers' wages, and administrative expenses. The appellant cited a precedent to support their argument that certain costs should not be included in the assessable value, thus justifying the refunds claimed.

Regarding administrative expenses, the Tribunal found that the deduction had already been allowed for salaries and wages, making a further deduction for administrative expenses a duplication. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed that the refund for administrative expenses should not have been granted, and the duty refund calculation needed to be revisited based on this determination.

The judgment emphasized that the refunds would be subject to the provisions of Section 11B(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the Tribunal's findings and the requirements of Section 11B(ii) of the Act, thereby allowing the appeals.