2009 (3) TMI 700 - AT - Central Excise

Exclusion of drawing/designing charges from Central Excise duty calculation upheld. Charges voluntary and beyond Act's scope.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to exclude drawing and designing charges from the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. ... Valuation - Drawings/Designing charges - Held that: - the drawings/designs are supplied voluntarily by the customers, not being the additional consideration, the cost thereof is not includible in the assessable value of the goods. The price of the goods is the normal price negotiated in the course of wholesale trade. It is the correct price at the time and place of removal from the factory. The addition of the amount of 2% of the assessable value for working out the duty liability is totally subjective and imaginary and has no legal basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Inclusion of drawing and designing charges in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation.Analysis:The appeal pertains to the inclusion of drawing and designing charges in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. The respondent, a manufacturer of specific goods, received 14 Show Cause Notices for alleged short payment of duty due to the exclusion of drawing/specification costs in the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed a penalty, leading the respondent to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals-II). The Commissioner, relying on a Tribunal order, allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision.In the 'Grounds of Appeal,' the Revenue argued that drawing and design charges are directly related to production and should be included in the assessable value. They cited legal precedents to support their contention. However, the Tribunal noted that the customers voluntarily supplied the drawings/designs without additional consideration to the assessee. As such, the cost of these drawings was deemed beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value should reflect the normal price negotiated in wholesale trade, rejecting the subjective addition of 2% to the value for duty calculation.The Tribunal distinguished the cited case laws by highlighting that in those instances, the charges for drawing and design were recovered from customers, unlike in the present case. Given the voluntary nature of the drawings supplied by customers without extra cost to the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, deeming it sustainable. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and cross-objections by the assessee were disposed of accordingly.