2000 (8) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of motor cycles, deductions on account of depot handling charges, inclusion of charges in assessable value, equalised cash discount, interest on receivables, tool kits, secondary packing, extended warranty charges, contributions to EDDAL, sale of publicity material to dealers.

Valuation of Motor Cycles:
The appeal concerns the valuation of motor cycles manufactured by the appellants, focusing on sales from depots and ex-factory sales. The Assistant Commissioner included various charges like equalised cash discount, interest on receivables, tool kits, secondary packing, depot handling charges, extended warranty charges, contributions to EDDAL, and sale of publicity material to dealers in the assessable value of the motor cycles. The issue was challenged in the present appeal.

Ex-Factory Price vs. Depot Price:
The Tribunal clarified that when ex-factory sale price is available, there is no need to determine a separate assessable value for goods sold from depots. Therefore, all motor cycles removed from the factory should be assessed based on the ex-factory price before the amendment of Section 4 in 1996.

Equalised Cash Discount and Interest on Receivables:
The appellants claimed deductions for equalised cash discount and interest on receivables. The Tribunal held that these deductions should be allowed based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a previous case. As there was no dispute that cash discounts were given or that sales were on a credit basis, these deductions were deemed valid.

Extended Warranty Charges:
Regarding extended warranty charges, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that separate amounts charged for extended warranty after the free period should not be added to the assessable value of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that adding the cost of extended warranty to the assessable value was unjustified.

Contributions to EDDAL:
The appellants collected contributions for EDDAL from dealers for standardization purposes. The Tribunal found that since the appellants did not benefit from these collections and the amounts were passed on to EDDAL for the benefit of its members, there was no legal basis for adding this amount to the assessable value of the motor cycles.

Sale of Publicity Material:
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument to include the sale price of publicity materials in the assessable value of motor cycles. It was determined that the sale of publicity materials was a separate activity from the sale of motor cycles, and their value should not be added to the assessable value.

Tool Kits and Secondary Packing:
The appellants withdrew the claims related to the value of tool kits and secondary packing during the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the inclusion of these costs in the assessable value of the motor cycles.

Final Decision and Remittance:
The Tribunal remitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision on the finalization of assessments for the motor cycles for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96 based on the legal positions stated in the Tribunal's order.