2014 (6) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - reimbursement of part of advertisement expenses - difference between transit insurance recovered from buyers and insurance paid - interest paid to financial institutions against bill discount - Turnover tax - Writing off calls for reversal of Cenvat credit of the entire amount - Cenvat credit on First-aid Kit - held that - Relevancy of such cost to manufacture was not brought out by Revenue. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that such expenses shall be integral part of cost of manufacture. Accordingly the facts and circumstances of the case read with Para 4 of adjudication order clearly brings out that publicity and advertisement was borne by the dealer at his choice to promote sale that does not mean that assessable value shall be hiked by the extent of reimbursement of part of above expenditure. Cost which makes the goods movable from factory is to only form part of the assessable value of goods cleared. Therefore, excess if any remains after payment of transit insurance is beyond scope of Central Excise Act, 1944 to be included in assessable value which may be subject matter of Income-Tax. Wherever a seller finds working capital crunch, financing facility is extended by bankers to accommodate the seller to realise their price on presentation of the bill. Wherever the seller is able to realise sale price on spot such facility is not resorted to. Therefore, addition of interest paid on bill discounting shall result in anamoly and arbitrary taxation for which such expenditure needs to be excluded from assessable value. Adjudication finding does not show whether there was discrepancy between average tax incidence paid and actual tax liability payable was examined by the authorities below. So also the modus operandi followed by the appellant was not examined to find out the truth. Therefore, making finding by Tribunal at this stage is premature. Hence, this aspect is remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Reimbursement of advertisement expenses in assessable value
2. Difference between transit insurance paid and collected in assessable value
3. Inclusion of interest paid on bill discount in assessable value
4. Deductibility of turnover tax from assessable value
5. Reversal of Cenvat credit on assets written off
6. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on First-aid kit

Reimbursement of advertisement expenses in assessable value:
The appellant argued that reimbursement of part of advertisement costs incurred by dealers should not form part of assessable value as it is a post-sale expenditure not related to manufacturing. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that such expenses should not be included in the assessable value. The Revenue, however, claimed that post-amendment laws necessitate including such reimbursements in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that dealer-incurred expenses reimbursed by the appellant for promotion do not necessarily increase the assessable value, as they are not integral to the cost of manufacture.

Difference between transit insurance paid and collected in assessable value:
The appellant argued that the excess amount resulting from the difference between transit insurance paid and collected should not be included in the assessable value, as it goes beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act and may be a subject matter of Income Tax. The Revenue contended that the collected amount should be added to the assessable value. The Tribunal held that only the cost making goods movable from the factory should be part of the assessable value, and any excess amount after insurance payment is not to be included.

Inclusion of interest paid on bill discount in assessable value:
The appellant sought to exclude interest paid on bill discounting from the assessable value, arguing it is not a routine business expenditure post-manufacture. The Revenue disagreed, but the Tribunal found that such interest, incurred due to working capital constraints, should be excluded to prevent arbitrary taxation.

Deductibility of turnover tax from assessable value:
The appellant claimed that turnover tax paid should be deductible from the assessable value, as it was paid on clearance commitments from specific territories where such taxation applied. The Revenue opposed, stating that actual payments were not claimed for deduction. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination of the reconciliation submitted by the appellant.

Reversal of Cenvat credit on assets written off:
The appellant contested the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on assets written off, arguing against arbitrary reversals without factual evidence. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the lower authority to assess each written-off asset's previous Cenvat credit utilization, directing a case-by-case examination.

Admissibility of Cenvat credit on First-aid kit:
The appellant claimed Cenvat credit on First-aid kits, citing statutory obligations under the Motor Vehicle Act and relevant case law. The Revenue denied the claim, but the Tribunal supported the appellant's position, allowing Cenvat credit for First-aid kits as they were considered inputs under prevailing Cenvat Credit Rules.

Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed in part, remanding certain issues for further examination by the Adjudicating Authority. Penalties imposed on certain individuals were also overturned due to the appellant's success on major demand issues.

← Previous Next →