2001 (4) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand and personal penalty imposition under Rule 173Q.

Analysis:
The appellants, manufacturers of jute goods, entered into Transferable Specific Delivery Contracts (T.S.D. Contracts) with customers for goods sale. The contracts included lorry hire charges based on circulars by East India Jute Hessian Exchange Ltd. The appellants claimed deduction of lorry hire charges from total sale value, but in cases where buyers arranged their own transport, equalised freight charges were deducted. Revenue contended that since appellants did not pay transportation charges, they couldn't claim deduction. Show cause notices were issued, and authorities confirmed duty demand, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, it was noted that when appellants arranged transportation and deducted equalised lorry hire charges, Revenue had no objection to the deduction. However, Revenue objected when buyers bore average freight charges, and appellants deducted the same to arrive at net chargeable amount. The tribunal found this objection unjustified. The tribunal explained with an example that if contracted price was Rs. 100 and equalised freight Rs. 10, the assessable value should be Rs. 90 when appellants arranged transportation. If buyers bore the freight, deducting Rs. 10 from Rs. 100 for net chargeable amount was appropriate. Demanding duty on the freight amount would be impermissible as it would exceed the net realisation from buyers. Invoices showed contracted price reduction by freight amount borne by buyers, with no allegation of overcharging. Therefore, the tribunal held the duty demand confirmation by authorities as unjustifiable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.