Tribunal denies refund claims for office machines sold to banks, excludes packing cost, rules on wholesale trade definition. Marketing expenses not allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims related to the sale of specified office machine models to banks. It determined that the cost of secondary packing should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal classified the sale to banks as wholesale trade, not retail, based on the definition of 'wholesale trade.' Additionally, it ruled that marketing expenses were not allowable for abatement. Consequently, all five appeals were disposed of in favor of the respondents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim related to specified office machine models sold to banks.
2. Treatment of sale to banks as retail or wholesale.
3. Inclusion of cost of secondary packing in assessable value.
4. Abatement of marketing expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeals involved the rejection of refund claims by the appellants concerning the sale of specified office machine models to banks. The issues were similar across all five appeals, leading to the clubbing of the cases for a common order.

2. The advocate for the appellants argued that the sale of office machine models to banks should be considered retail, not wholesale. However, the JDR for the respondents pointed out that the Department had taken up the issue of secondary packing in one of the appeals. The Tribunal referred to previous Supreme Court decisions regarding the inclusion of secondary packing costs in the assessable value, ultimately upholding that the cost of secondary packing should not be included.

3. Regarding the classification of the sale to banks as retail or wholesale, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'wholesale trade' under Section 4(4)(e). The advocate emphasized that since the goods were sold to banks for their own use, it should be treated as retail. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that sales to industrial consumers like banks fall under wholesale trade, and thus, the argument for retail sale was dismissed.

4. The Department filed an appeal concerning the abatement of marketing expenses. The Tribunal noted that the Collector (Appeals) had allowed abatement for freight and insurance but not for marketing expenses. It was clarified that marketing expenses were not allowable for abatement, and the Collector's decision to deny abatement for marketing expenses was upheld. Consequently, all five appeals were disposed of based on the above determinations.

---