2016 (1) TMI 918 - AT - Central Excise

Rent or compensation charges for the loss or damage - whether will form part of the transaction value and duty is required to be paid on the said amount? - Held that - In appellants own case, the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal 2008 (6) TMI 427 - CESTAT, BANGALORE held that the rental charges are leviable when the cylinder is retained for a period longer than the stipulated time. When such is the case, how can one hold that such charges are in relation to the sale of the gases? Hence, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. We set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Common issue involving whether rent or compensation charges for loss or damage on cylinders provided by respondent to buyers form part of transaction value for duty payment.

Analysis:
In this case, the appellant, the revenue, filed four appeals against the respondent, Inox Air Products Ltd., regarding the inclusion of charges for rent or compensation for loss or damage on cylinders provided to buyers in the transaction value for duty payment. The respondent is engaged in manufacturing industrial gases like oxygen and nitrogen, delivering them to buyers at the factory gate. Some buyers do not bring their cylinders, so the respondent provides cylinders on free loan, charging rent if not returned timely or for loss/damage. The revenue argues that such charges should be part of the transaction value, citing a Board circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demands based on Tribunal decisions. The appellant contends that the charges are additional consideration related to the sale of goods, akin to marketing charges, and are essential for transporting industrial gases. They refer to a Tribunal judgment challenged in the Supreme Court. The respondent cites various case laws to support that the charges are not related to the goods sold.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and referred to a previous judgment in the appellant's own case where the issue was similar. The Tribunal observed that the rental charges for cylinders cannot be treated as additional consideration for the goods sold, as they are not part of the sale of final products. They also noted that the Boards' clarification relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the Apex Court's judgment in a similar case. They dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue based on the precedent set in the appellant's own case, thereby upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and disposing of the cross objections filed by the respondents accordingly.