1998 (2) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Refund claims for freight and forwarding charges.
2. Interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Deductibility of loading and unloading charges in determining assessable value.
4. Treatment of documentation charges in assessable value.
5. Inclusion of repacking costs in assessable value.

Analysis:

The judgment deals with the appeal arising from refund claims filed by the appellant regarding the inclusion of freight and forwarding charges in the assessable value, resulting in excess duty payment. The Assistant Collector granted partial relief but denied refund on service charges like typing, zerox copies, telegrams, etc. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the filing of the present appeals.

The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Act excludes the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery in determining the assessable value. In this case, the goods were cleared from the factory to depots for sales, making the factory gate the place of removal. The judgment clarifies that costs incurred for loading and unloading at the godown, in order to transport goods from the factory gate to the dealer's premises, are deductible under Section 4(2) of the Act. This interpretation aligns with the decision in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case, emphasizing the deduction of transportation costs from the factory gate to the place of delivery.

The Tribunal's consistent view, supported by previous cases like Associated Pigments Ltd., Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., and Patel Detergents, emphasizes the deductibility of loading and unloading charges at the depot in determining the assessable value. Despite a contrary view in Hindustan Lever Ltd., the judgment follows the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and MRF Ltd., affirming the deductibility of such charges.

Regarding documentation charges like zerox copies, typing, and telegram expenses, the judgment clarifies that these costs are not part of the transportation cost and cannot be included in the assessable value. Similarly, the cost incurred for repacking goods by the transporter, solely to prevent damage during transport, is held not necessary for delivery in wholesale trade and thus cannot be included in the assessable value.

In conclusion, the impugned orders are set aside, and the cases are remanded for determining the correct refund amount, subject to the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Act. The appeals are allowed, providing clarity on the deductibility of specific charges in determining the assessable value under the Central Excise Act, 1944.