2015 (10) TMI 2070 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Determination of assessable value - Inclusion of expenditure in developing the art work and plate making charges - Held that - As explained by the ld. counsel for the appellant that normally they are not charging their customers separately for the art work and development of plates, as these are essential part of printing process and the expenditure done on the items gets included in the charges they collect from their customer for printing or for manufacture of final products. We also note that the art work and development of plate is not being done by themselves but by some other person. If such plates or art work is not being used then we do not find any reason to include the expenditure so made in the assessable value. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value determination based on debit notes for art work and plate making not used in manufacturing.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing printed cartons, catch covers, and labels, incurring expenses on art work and plate making. The appellant did not directly recover these costs but included them in the final product prices. However, in cases where art work or plates were not used due to customer rejection or order cancellation, the appellant issued debit notes for the expenses. The revenue contended that such expenses should be part of the assessable value, leading to demand notices.

The appellant argued that the expenses were not recovered in most cases, and the art work or plate making was not done by them but by a third party. They asserted that if duty were to be charged, it should be from the entity performing the art work. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their position, emphasizing the absence of provisos for invoking the extended limitation period.

On the other hand, the Revenue claimed that any expenditure on art work and plate making recovered from buyers should be included in the assessable value. They highlighted that crucial facts were allegedly suppressed from the department and only surfaced during investigation, justifying the use of the extended limitation period.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that the appellant typically did not charge customers separately for art work and plate making, as these costs were inherent in the printing process. Since the art work and plate making were outsourced and not utilized, the Tribunal found no justification for including such expenses in the assessable value. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the art work and plate making charges should not be part of the assessable value unless used in manufacturing. Consequently, the appeals were allowed based on merit, rendering further discussion on extended limitation period or penalties unnecessary.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the art work and plate making expenses not utilized in manufacturing should not contribute to the assessable value. The decision was supported by a previous case precedent, leading to the allowance of the appeals without delving into additional aspects like the extended limitation period or penalties.