2008 (2) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation and Duty Disputes: M.R.P. Prevails

The case involved disputes over the valuation of glass bottles for Aerated water supply and duty calculation based on M.R.P. versus actual sale price. The ... Respondents are collecting some deposits from their customers towards glass bottles in which Aerated water is supplied - no evidence adduced by Dept. that the respondents are collecting any amount over & above on the sale price of the soft drinks from their customers - actual price cannot be a basis of valuation u/s 4A - respondents are only collecting a deposit to safeguard against breakage & non return of the containers, impugned order holding assessment on the basis of M.R.P. is correct Issues:1. Valuation of glass bottles for Aerated water supply2. Duty calculation based on M.R.P. vs. actual sale price3. Inclusion of amortized cost of containers in assessable value4. Department's request for audit of respondent's accountsValuation of glass bottles: The case involved the collection of deposits by the respondents from customers for glass bottles used in supplying Aerated water. The Advocate for the Respondents argued that these deposits were returned to customers upon bottle return or adjusted for broken/unreturned bottles, with no additional amount collected beyond the soft drink sale price. Referring to a decision by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, it was highlighted that duty must be paid based on M.R.P. and not the actual sale price, and rental charges on bottles cannot be included in the value.Duty calculation based on M.R.P. vs. actual sale price: The Respondents contended that the duty collected on the basis of M.R.P. was correct as they did not charge any extra amount from customers beyond the retail sale price of the soft drinks. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Delhi Bench's decision that valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act should be based on retail sale price, not the actual price. No contrary decision from a higher court was presented, leading to the rejection of the Department's appeals.Inclusion of amortized cost of containers: The Department argued that the amortized cost of durable and returnable containers should be added to the assessable value unless already included in the sale price of goods. The Department requested an audit of the respondent's accounts to verify this. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the appellants were charging extra from customers and upheld the assessment based on M.R.P., as per the cited decision and Supreme Court precedent.Department's request for audit: The Department sought a direction to allow an audit of the respondent's accounts to ascertain the inclusion of amortized costs. However, the Tribunal found no basis for such an audit as there was no evidence of additional charges to customers. The decision was made based on existing legal principles and the absence of any contrary decisions from higher courts. As a result, the Department's appeals were rejected, affirming the correctness of the assessment based on M.R.P.