1999 (8) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether rental charges for crate and bottles for packing aerated water are to be included in the assessable value of the aerated water.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, regarding the inclusion of rental charges for crate and bottles in the assessable value of aerated water. The primary issue involved was whether these rental charges should be considered in the calculation of the assessable value.

The appellant's representative argued that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the stipulated time limit. The appellant had previously informed the authorities about their intention to engage in the business of renting bottles and crates, citing a relevant circular. It was contended that since the rental charges were disclosed, they should not be included in the assessable value. The advocate further relied on legal precedents to support the argument that charges for activities not related to manufacturing should not be included in the assessable value.

On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the rental charges were excessive compared to the actual cost of the crates and bottles, alleging that it was a disguised way of charging for the aerated water itself. The respondent also raised concerns about the extended time limit for issuing the show cause notice, suggesting that the rental charges were willfully misrepresented to the Department.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had already allowed a deduction for the rental charges, indicating that the cost of the durable and returnable crates and bottles should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's stance that any profit from renting out these items should not factor into the assessable value, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the rental charges had been disclosed earlier, and if the Department had doubts, they could have sought clarification. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on both merit and time limit grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified that rental charges for crate and bottles used for packing aerated water should not be included in the assessable value of the aerated water, as long as any profit from such activities is not considered part of the assessable value. The decision underscored the importance of transparency in disclosing such charges and the need for authorities to verify information before raising demands.