2016 (3) TMI 800 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of Classic Polytubes Pvt. Ltd., excludes inspection charges from assessable value

M/s Classic Polytubes Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, M/s. Classic Polytubes Pvt. Ltd., as the inspection charges at the buyer's instance were deemed ... Assessable value - whether inspection charges with respect to a specific inspection of the buyer is required to be added to the assessable value? - Held that:- As per the definition of 'place of removal' extracted above, given in Section 4 (3) (c) at the relevant time was a factory or any other place or premises or a warehouse wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. There is no mention of place of sale of the goods in Section 4 (3) (c) during the relevant time. It has to be held that place of removal is the factory or a premises from where duty is paid and not where the goods are sold. The words, like ''a depot, premises of consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory' were not existing in Section 4 (3) (6) during the relevant period. Further Rule 5 of the Valuation rules, 2002 also provide that cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is required to be excluded from the transaction value. In the present case the sale is effected at the factory gate which is the place of removal and transportation cost is separately indicated in the invoices As for the period 1/7/2000 to 31/3/2003, place of removal was only extended to either the factory or a warehouse/premises from where duty was paid. Appeal of the appellant on this account is thus required to be allowed. On the issue of inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value, it is observed that the same are not mandatory inspections during the manufacture of the goods. A specific mention has been made by the first appellate authority in para 8.1 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 30/11/2006 that these additional inspections are got done at the instance of the buyers and is not mandatory. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs. M/s. TVS Motors Company Ltd. (2015 (12) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT ) also held that pre-delivery inspection charges cannot be included in the assessable value. In view of the above observations and settled proposition of law, optional inspection charges at the instance of buyer cannot be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided in favour of revenue Issues:1. Whether inspection charges at the instance of the buyer are required to be added to the assessable value.2. Whether freight and insurance charges paid by the appellant and later reimbursed are required to be included in the assessable value.Analysis:Issue 1: Inspection ChargesThe appellant argued that optional inspection charges at the buyer's instance should not be included in the assessable value. The Advocate cited case laws to support this argument. The Tribunal noted that the inspections were not mandatory during manufacturing and were done at the buyer's request. Referring to precedent cases, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II Vs. Johnson Pumps (I) Ltd., the Tribunal held that optional inspection charges at the buyer's instance are not includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 2: Freight and Insurance ChargesRegarding freight and insurance charges, the Revenue argued that since goods were sold at the buyer's premises, these charges should be included in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Valuation Rules. It was established that during the relevant period, the place of removal was either the factory gate or a warehouse where duty was paid, not the buyer's premises. The Tribunal referenced the case of CC&CE, Nagpur Vs. M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. to support this interpretation. Thus, for the period in question, the factory gate was deemed the place of removal, and transportation costs were to be excluded from the transaction value.ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, M/s. Classic Polytubes Pvt. Ltd., as the inspection charges at the buyer's instance were deemed non-includible in the assessable value. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that freight and insurance charges were not required to be included in the assessable value as the sale occurred at the factory gate, which was the place of removal during the relevant period.