Reimbursement expenses excluded from assessable value; no perversity or limitation defect justified interference with the adjudication.

Inspection and transport charges recovered under supply contracts were treated as buyer-borne reimbursement expenses, not part of the assessee's assessable value for reversing Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the absence of contrary evidence, that factual finding was sustained, and the record disclosed no perversity, legal infirmity, or limitation defect warranting interference with the adjudication. The analysis therefore affirms that contractual charges characterised as reimbursements do not enter assessable value unless supported by cogent material showing otherwise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inspection and transport charges realized under the supply contracts formed part of the assessable value for computing reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; and (ii) whether the adjudication suffered from any legal infirmity or limitation defect warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether inspection and transport charges realized under the supply contracts formed part of the assessable value for computing reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The contracts were examined and the charges were found to be borne by the buyer and merely arranged by the assessee on the buyer's behalf. The adjudicating authority treated the amounts as reimbursement expenses. No contrary evidence was produced to displace that factual finding.

Conclusion: The charges did not form part of the assessable value for the purpose of reversal of Cenvat credit, and the finding was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication suffered from any legal infirmity or limitation defect warranting interference.

Analysis: The revenue failed to produce cogent material to show perversity or irrationality in the findings below. The adjudicating authority had also recorded limitation as a ground against maintainability, and the record disclosed no basis to disturb the decision.

Conclusion: No legal infirmity, perversity, or limitation ground was made out to interfere with the adjudication, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed and the adjudication in favour of the assessee was affirmed, leaving the assessment-related relief intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Factual findings that contractual charges are reimbursements and not part of the assessable value cannot be disturbed in appeal in the absence of cogent contrary evidence or perversity.

---