1999 (9) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deductions by Central Excise authorities.
2. Interpretation of amendment to Section 4 regarding "place of removal."
3. Claim for deduction of freight expenses.
4. Inclusion of transit insurance cost in assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in paint manufacturing, claimed deductions for freight, transit insurance, octroi, and turnover tax from the depot price. The Central Excise authorities disallowed deductions for freight and transit insurance, leading to this appeal.

2. The assessment related to the period after an amendment to Section 4 in 1996, expanding the definition of "place of removal." The dispute centered on whether the depot where goods were sold was the place of removal, impacting the assessable value based on the depot price.

3. The appellants argued that freight costs from depot to local distributor should be deductible. However, lower authorities rejected the claim, stating that the depot was declared as the place of removal, making depot prices the assessable value. The absence of evidence showing responsibility for delivery to the buyer's destination led to disallowance of the deduction.

4. Regarding transit insurance costs, it covered transit from the factory to the depot. The Revenue argued that all costs up to the depot sale should be part of the assessable value, including transit insurance. The appellants contended that as post-manufacturing costs, transit insurance should not be included, though they acknowledged it was incurred before the depot sale.

5. The records lacked evidence that the depot price included freight to the dealer's premises, with no supporting invoices or contracts. The amendment to Section 4 made depot price the assessment basis, justifying the inclusion of all costs up to the depot stage. Consequently, the appellants' claim for deductions failed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.