Ex-works sale pricing excludes separately charged insurance when the contract and invoices show buyer-paid cover at extra cost.

Ex-works sales documents showing price exclusive of packing, freight and insurance, with insurance arranged only at the buyer's request and charged separately, indicate that insurance charges are not part of the sale consideration under the Central Sales Tax Act. The operative principle is that separately stipulated and post-dispatch insurance in such a transaction is excluded from sale price. The later assessment years were also capable of independent examination on their own evidentiary record, so a different view on fresh material did not by itself require reference to a Larger Bench. The reference was answered against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether insurance charges formed part of the sale price under section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether, on the evidence produced for the later assessment years, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view different from its earlier view and in refusing to treat the matter as one requiring reference to a Larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether insurance charges formed part of the sale price under section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The agreements, quotations, invoices and marine cover note showed that the deliveries were on an ex-works basis, that the quoted price was expressly stated to be exclusive of packing, carriage, freight and insurance, and that insurance was to be arranged only at the buyer's instructions and at extra cost. The documents also showed separate charging of insurance and that the insurance cover attached after dispatch of the goods. On these facts, the insurance charges were not part of the consideration for sale and could not be included in the sale price.

Conclusion: The insurance charges were not includible in the sale price, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the evidence produced for the later assessment years, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view different from its earlier view and in refusing to treat the matter as one requiring reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The later record contained documentary material that was not shown to have been before the earlier Bench, and the Tribunal was entitled to decide the issue on the basis of the evidence before it for the relevant assessment years. A different conclusion on a later record did not render the Tribunal's approach perverse or obligate a reference merely because an earlier view had been taken on a different evidentiary foundation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in taking a different view on the later evidence, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the Revenue, holding that separately charged insurance on an ex-works transaction did not form part of the sale price and that the Tribunal could decide the later years on their own evidentiary record.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract and accompanying documents show an ex-works sale with insurance separately stipulated and charged at the buyer's cost, insurance charges do not form part of the sale price; a tribunal may also reach a different conclusion for later assessment years on a different evidentiary record.

---