2018 (10) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce’ marked on the package subject to permissible abatement. There is no evidence that, in the present proceedings, the marked price had been altered at any stage subsequently - There is also no allegation that the two charges are contractually fastened on every purchaser of the goods manufactured by the respondent. To the extent that the coverages remain optional, it cannot be said that the ‘maximum retail price’ should include such charges. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri DS Chauhan, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent : Shri A Hidayatullah, Senior Advocate with Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate ORDER PER: C J MATHEW Reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present dispute. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent contends that the two offerings are optional and become operational only upon expiry of the initial mandatory warranty period; that these can be opted out of at any stage would take them out of the purview of costs includible in 'maximum retail price' according to Learned Senior Counsel. 4. Learned Authorised Representative had cited the decision of the Tribunal in Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II [2011 (273) ELT 585 (Tri-Mumbai)] on the inclusion of the very same charges in the assessable value. The applicability of the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that '2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orders and the same are upheld. Appeals filed by the appellants are rejected.' is contested by Learned Senior Counsel. Likewise, he contends that reliance cannot be placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Videocon Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2016 (335) ELT 778 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 5. The Tribunal, while deciding the dispute in re Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd, upheld the includability of the two charges in the 'maximum retail price' because of the inability on the part of the assessee to evidence their costing record and in the face of consolidation of charges in the customer invoice. In the present instance, Learned Senior Counsel points out that it is not in dispute that consolidated prices in the invoice rais .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X