2014 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - valuation - inclusion of freight charges - Held that - The adjudicating authority in his order has observed that the appellant did not mention the freight charges in the invoices issued and raised debit notes on the buyer of the goods. In appeal, the lower appellate authority, on perusal of the sample invoice, came to the conclusion that the invoice did indicate the freight charges and, therefore, the adjudicating authority was in error - Matter already remanded back - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal regarding examination of individual contracts to ascertain terms of sale and delivery.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for rectification of mistake against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The Tribunal had remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for examination of individual contracts to determine the terms of sale and delivery. The applicant contended that the Tribunal delved into areas where there was no dispute regarding terms and conditions of supply/delivery, attempting to establish a new case. The learned counsel sought the recall of the order and the rejection of the appeal filed by the Revenue against the lower authorities' order.

Upon careful review of the case records, it was noted that the adjudicating authority had previously highlighted the absence of freight charges in the invoices issued, leading to debit notes being raised on the buyer of the goods. However, the lower appellate authority, upon examining a sample invoice, found that the invoice did indeed reflect the freight charges, contradicting the adjudicating authority's stance. The Tribunal, in its observations, emphasized the importance of clarifying the terms and conditions of sale to determine the assessable value correctly. It was highlighted that if goods were delivered at the buyer's premises, transportation costs from the factory to the buyer's premises should be included in the assessable value.

The Tribunal, after scrutinizing the invoices, concluded that there was no error in its order and that the matter needed to be re-evaluated by the adjudicating authority based on the terms of purchase and sale in various transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the rectification of mistake application and dismissed the same. The judgment underscores the significance of accurately determining the terms of sale and delivery to ensure the appropriate assessment of the value of goods involved in the transactions.