2012 (11) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ht and insurance. Remaining final products were cleared from their factory to their depot on payment of duty and selling the goods from depot. While clearing the goods from factory they were charging the same percentage of price as freight and insurance as was being charged on sales made at the factory gate. The assessments were made on provisional basis. The present dispute has arisen on the issue as to what was the correct assessable value of the goods i.e. whether the amounts collected as freight and insurance is to be taken to form part of the assessable value. The amounts confirmed in the impugned orders are differential duty demanded in the process of finalization of provisional assessments. 2. The Show Cause Notices were issued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upport this claim they have submitted four declarations given by their customers. 4. The case of Revenue is that the amount recovered towards freight and insurance was more than freight incurred by them but the Show Cause Notice nowhere specifies how much the amount was in excess. It is drafted in an ambivalent manner to give the impression that the demand is on the excess amount collected. But it is seen from the paras starting with the words "Now therefore" in the three Show Cause Notices that the demands made for each period is on the entire amount realized during the period as freight and insurance. We also see slight play of words by presenting the case as a claim for deduction of equalized freight whereas the situation is Revenu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enue in many cases with reference to different legal position prevailing in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the Valuation Rules. Mostly Revenue has lost their cases on this issue. The latest of such decision is C.C.E. v. Accurate Meters Ltd. - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 581 (S.C.) 7. Even in situations where the equalized freight charge was marginally in excess of the actual freight incurred, the reasoning that the differential element realized should form part of assessable value is an argument lost. The decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) is in such a context. 8. The above decisions cannot be interpreted to mean that an assessee can charge any amount of the value of the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X