Buyer-linked incentive forms part of excise assessable value, while demand is limited by territorial jurisdiction.

Quantity-linked incentive received from the buyer was treated as additional sale consideration and held includible in assessable value for central excise valuation under the valuation rules. Excise demand was also confined to the unit within the adjudicating authority's territorial jurisdiction, so supplies from the Bangalore unit could not be covered by the Chandigarh authority. Penalty equal to duty was considered excessive and reduced to a nominal amount. The document states the core principle that buyer-linked receipts form part of assessable value, while demand and penalty must remain within jurisdictional and proportional limits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the quantity-linked incentive received from the buyer formed part of the assessable value for levy of central excise duty; (ii) whether duty could be demanded by the Chandigarh authority in respect of supplies made from the Bangalore unit; and (iii) whether the penalty equivalent to duty was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the quantity-linked incentive received from the buyer formed part of the assessable value for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: The additional amount received from the customer was treated as part of the sale consideration for the goods manufactured and supplied. The fact that the incentive was described differently, or that its receipt depended on future contingencies, did not alter its character as consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee. Such additional consideration was held to be includible in the assessable value under Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.

Conclusion: The incentive was includible in the assessable value and the demand on that basis was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether duty could be demanded by the Chandigarh authority in respect of supplies made from the Bangalore unit.

Analysis: The demand could extend only to the unit over which the adjudicating authority had territorial jurisdiction. Since the supplies from the Bangalore unit were outside the Chandigarh authority's jurisdiction, the demand could not be sustained for that unit.

Conclusion: The duty demand was confined to supplies made from the Parwanoo unit and was not sustainable for the Bangalore unit.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty equivalent to duty was justified.

Analysis: The matter was not found fit for a penalty equal to the duty involved. The circumstances justified only a nominal penalty in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced and fixed at Rs. 15,000.

Final Conclusion: The inclusion of the buyer-linked incentive in assessable value was sustained, the demand was restricted to the Parwanoo unit for want of jurisdiction over the Bangalore unit, and the penalty was substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Any amount received from the buyer as part of the sale arrangement constitutes additional consideration and is includible in assessable value under the valuation rules, while excise demand must remain within the adjudicating authority's territorial jurisdiction.

---