2017 (2) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Assessable value - Quantification of average freight - Held that - We find from the Chartered Accountant certificate that Chartered Accountant taken actual annual turnover and total insurance freight during the year and accordingly arrived at the percentage of freight i.e. 1.95%. We find that the Chartered Accountant certificate is absolutely correct and we have no hesitation in discarding the method adopted by the Revenue by taking the lowest freight and insurance - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Quantification of percentage of average freight to be deducted from the assessable value of excisable goods.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around determining the correct quantification of the average freight to be deducted from the assessable value of excisable goods. Both the appellant and the department agree that average freight is deductible, but the disagreement lies in the method of calculating this deduction. The appellant claimed the average freight at 2.5%, while the lower authorities calculated it at 1.81% based on the two lowest figures of freight paid. The appellant challenged this calculation, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the original order, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the total freight for the preceding financial year should be considered to arrive at the correct percentage of average freight. She contended that the total freight of the financial year amounted to 1.95%, and criticized the authorities for only considering the lowest rate of freight. The counsel emphasized the importance of taking the total freight against the total value of goods for accurate calculation. She supported her argument by citing various judgments to establish the correct approach for calculating average freight.

On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the method adopted by the lower authorities.

After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on the issue of deduction for freight and insurance to determine the correct assessable value. The Tribunal noted that while there was no dispute on deducting average freight and insurance from the value, the disagreement lay in the quantum of average freight calculated by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found the Revenue's method of selecting cases with the lowest freight paid to be incorrect. Instead, the Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the total freight paid against the total turnover to arrive at the average freight accurately. Relying on the Chartered Accountant's certificate, which calculated the freight at 1.95% based on actual turnover and total insurance freight, the Tribunal deemed this method correct. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the duty amount by deducting freight and insurance at 1.95%.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the correct approach to quantifying average freight deductions from the assessable value of excisable goods, emphasizing the importance of considering total freight paid against total turnover for accurate calculations. The judgment provided clarity on this issue and set a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.