Assessable value includes compulsory dealer fee, permits revision of provisional price lists, and denies tax deduction without proof of payment.

Amounts compulsorily recovered from dealers as a separate technical service fee were treated as part of the sale consideration and included in assessable value because the recovery was not shown to be an optional post-sale service charge. Demand covering the four approved price lists for the relevant period was sustained because the notice challenged the valuation for the full provisional assessment period, and earlier approval of some price lists did not prevent revision on finalisation. Deduction for surcharge on additional sales tax was disallowed because no proof of actual payment was produced. The departmental valuation was upheld on all surviving issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the technical service fee collected from dealers was includible in the assessable value. (ii) Whether the demand relating to the four price lists approved for the period 30-12-1983 to 7-4-1985 was sustainable. (iii) Whether deduction on account of surcharge on additional sales tax was allowable while determining assessable value.

Issue (i): Whether the technical service fee collected from dealers was includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The price structure showed that the so-called technical service fee was recovered separately through debit notes and was not linked to any optional post-sale service actually rendered to buyers. The evidence on record indicated that the recovery was compulsory, formed part of the commercial consideration for the goods, and was kept out of the declared wholesale price. The price declarations and provisional assessments were found to have suppressed the true sale realization.

Conclusion: The technical service fee was rightly added to the declared prices and was includible in the assessable value, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand relating to the four price lists approved for the period 30-12-1983 to 7-4-1985 was sustainable.

Analysis: The notice covered the entire period and expressly sought revision of the declared wholesale prices for all the price lists, including those earlier approved finally. The assessments were provisional for the entire period, and once the basis of valuation was validly challenged, finalisation could proceed on the revised valuation. The earlier approval of some price lists did not bar their revision in the course of finalising provisional assessments.

Conclusion: The demand relating to the four price lists was sustainable, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction on account of surcharge on additional sales tax was allowable while determining assessable value.

Analysis: Deduction for tax-related components is permissible only on proof of actual payment. No evidence was produced to establish payment of the surcharge on additional sales tax for the relevant period, so the claimed deduction could not be granted.

Conclusion: The deduction on account of surcharge on additional sales tax was not allowable, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the department was upheld on all surviving issues, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts compulsorily recovered from dealers as part of the sale consideration, though described separately, form part of the assessable value, and provisional assessments may be finalised on the basis of revised valuation for the entire covered period.

---