Tribunal dismisses appeal on transportation costs inclusion in assessable value without evidence of disintegration

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal regarding the inclusion of transportation costs of input and handling charges in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the job worker. The Tribunal found that without evidence of a clear disintegration between these costs and the manufacturing process, the appellant could not succeed. It was emphasized that handling charges are integral to the input reaching the job worker's premises and cannot be separated. The Tribunal also noted that arguments based on previous decisions were deemed inapplicable, and issues not raised in the appeal cannot be considered.

---

---

Issues:
1. Inclusion of transportation cost of input sent to job worker's premises in assessable value.
2. Inclusion of handling charges incurred by job worker for unloading goods in assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this appeal concerns whether the transportation cost of input sent to the job worker's premises should be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the job worker. The appellant failed to provide evidence showing a clear disintegration between the transportation cost and the contract between the manufacturer and the job worker. Without such disintegration, the appellant cannot succeed on this issue.

2. The second issue pertains to whether the handling charges incurred by the job worker for unloading the goods should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that handling charges are integrally connected with the input reaching the job worker's premises and cannot be disintegrated. The Tribunal emphasized that every activity involves a cost, whether undertaken by external workers or the job worker's own workers.

3. The appellant relied on a previous decision related to the transportation of empty bottles, which was deemed inapplicable to the current case involving the assessable value of transportation charges in the hands of the job worker. The Tribunal highlighted the settled legal position based on another case cited by the Revenue.

4. The Respondent's representative pointed out the non-inclusion of the cost of waste arising during the manufacturing process, which was not raised by the appellant in the written submissions or appeal. The Tribunal clarified that it cannot create jurisdiction to decide issues not brought before it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both the transportation cost and handling charges issues.

---