1998 (9) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on assessable value calculation.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals).
3. Claiming deductions in price lists for refund.
4. Production of evidence for expenses incurred by the appellant.
5. Necessity of secondary packing for safe transportation.
6. Failure to prove quantum of freight, insurance, and secondary packing charges.
7. Use of corrugated and wooden boxes for packing goods.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electrical goods, filed a refund claim for the period from August 1986 to December 1986, contending that the assessable value included elements like transportation, transit insurance, and secondary packing costs, leading to excess duty payment. The claim was based on a costing certificate by a Chartered Accountant.

2. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, citing the lack of documentary evidence for expenses incurred by the appellant and the claim being time-barred for a specific period. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that deductions not claimed in price lists cannot be later claimed through a refund.

3. The Collector (Appeals) relied on previous tribunal decisions regarding the rejection of refund claims due to unclaimed deductions in price lists. However, the Tribunal highlighted a contradictory decision by the High Court of Calcutta, indicating that failure to claim deductions in price lists should not be a ground for rejecting refund claims.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the quantum of expenses for freight, insurance, and secondary packing. Despite producing a costing certificate based on accounting entries, primary documents supporting the expenditure were not presented.

5. The appellant argued that secondary packing was necessary for safe transportation, especially since all goods were delivered to buyers at their premises. The use of corrugated and wooden boxes for packing was a standard practice, indicating the necessity of such packing for wholesale sale at the factory gate.

6. While acknowledging the necessity of packing for safe transportation, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not sufficiently prove the actual expenses incurred for freight, insurance, and secondary packing. The costing certificate lacked primary document support, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to insufficient evidence.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the rejection of the refund claim, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the expenses incurred. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the lack of proof for the quantum of charges related to freight, insurance, and secondary packing.