1996 (4) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Inclusion of filling charges in the assessable value under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the inclusion of filling charges collected separately by M/s. Solar Chemicals from their customers in the assessable value. The Revenue contended that the extra sums of Rs. 10/- per tanker, collected when filling was done manually due to pump failure, should be part of the assessable value. The Respondent argued that these charges were only for manual filling when power supply failed, and therefore should not be included. The Appellate Tribunal considered whether these charges should be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

During the hearing, the Revenue argued that the additional sums of Rs. 10/- per metric ton were an additional consideration and should be included in the assessable value. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that these charges were only collected when manual filling was required due to power supply failure, and were not part of the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the filling was done within the factory premises before delivery to customers, and held that filling charges, regardless of manual or pump operation, should be included in the assessable value.

The Tribunal found that the extra sums of Rs. 10/- per metric ton, collected separately, were not included in the assessable value. They determined that these filling charges, when done within the factory premises, should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal also noted that the filling charges needed to be considered in arriving at the factory gate price, despite arguments that they were not essential. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct assessable values must be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and concluded that the filling charges were indeed includible in the assessable values.

After considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal held that the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was improper and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision was made in favor of the Revenue.