Interest on advances for dies and moulds is not part of assessable value once amortized cost is already included.

Where the cost of dies and moulds has already been amortized and included in the assessable value of goods, interest accrued on the advance received for those dies and moulds is treated as a financing charge and not part of transaction value. On that basis, the proposed inclusion of such interest in assessable value was not legally sustainable, and the connected duty demand and penalties based on that inclusion also could not stand. The article notes only a limited surviving adjustment relating to inputs cleared outside the factory, with appropriation and corresponding interest sustained to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest accrued on advance received for dies and moulds was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared to the buyer after the dies and moulds had been amortized and included in the value of the goods. (ii) Whether the duty demand, penalties, and related interest could survive once the inclusion of such interest in assessable value was held unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether interest accrued on advance received for dies and moulds was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared to the buyer after the dies and moulds had been amortized and included in the value of the goods.

Analysis: The dies and moulds were imported against advance received from the buyer, used in manufacture, and their cost had already been amortized and apportioned in the assessable value of the goods cleared. The method followed was consistent with the departmental circular governing amortization. The decisive question was whether the financing element, namely the interest accrued on the advance, formed part of the assessable value. The reasoning accepted that financing charges stand outside the scope of transaction value and that there was no legal basis to add such interest once the mould and die cost itself had been duly amortized and included.

Conclusion: The interest accrued on the advance was not includible in the assessable value, and the duty demand founded on that inclusion could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand, penalties, and related interest could survive once the inclusion of such interest in assessable value was held unsustainable.

Analysis: Once the principal demand based on inclusion of notional interest failed, the connected penalties imposed on the assessee and on the responsible officer also lost their foundation. The demand relating to credit on inputs cleared outside the factory was, however, supported to the limited extent of adjustment against the amount already paid, and the appropriation of a small amount already realized was maintained. Interest was confined only to the surviving limited demand.

Conclusion: The principal demand and penalties were set aside, while the limited adjustment, confirmed appropriation, and corresponding interest on the surviving amount were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed overall, with the core levy based on notional interest rejected and only the limited surviving adjustment and appropriation left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the cost of dies and moulds has already been amortized and included in the assessable value of the goods, interest on the advance received for those dies and moulds is a financing charge and does not form part of the assessable value.

---