2017 (1) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal excludes packing charges from assessable value, buyer-requested packing for safe transport not marketing.

International Conveyors Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the packing charges should not be included in the assessable value of goods. It found that the ... Valuation - packing charges - whether the packing charges are includible in the assessable value? - Held that: - the conveyor belt in normal course dos not require any packing. However, in the supplies made under this contract there is a condition for packing that too for safe transportation. This shows that these packing are not meant for marketing of the goods but only for safe transport of the goods - reliance placed in the case of Ponds India Ltd [1989 (10) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that irrespective of the fact, whether it is primary or secondary packing but if it is done for transportation of goods and not for marketing of the goods the same is not includable in the assessable value - packing charges not to be included in assessable value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:- Inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of goods- Interpretation of contract terms regarding packing requirements- Application of the Supreme Court judgment on packing chargesAnalysis:Issue 1: Inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of goodsThe case involved a dispute over the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of goods. The appellant argued that the packing was specifically demanded by the buyer for safe transportation of the goods, and hence should not be considered as part of the assessable value. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment that stated if packing is provided at the request of the buyer for safe transportation, it should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal examined the contract terms and found that the packing was indeed demanded by the buyer for safe transportation, not for marketing purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the packing charges should not be included in the assessable value of the goods.Issue 2: Interpretation of contract terms regarding packing requirementsThe Tribunal analyzed the specific condition in the contract related to packing, which stated that the packing of materials should conform to carrier requirements for safe transportation by sea/rail/road. This condition indicated a clear demand for packing by the buyer to avoid damage during transportation. The Tribunal noted that the packing was solely for safe transportation purposes and not for marketing the goods. It was observed that while the conveyor belt did not require packing in normal circumstances, the contract mandated packing for safe transport. This interpretation of the contract terms played a crucial role in determining the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value.Issue 3: Application of the Supreme Court judgment on packing chargesThe Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment that emphasized the distinction between packing done for transportation purposes and packing done for marketing the goods. Regardless of whether the packing was primary or secondary, if it was carried out for transportation and not marketing, it should not be included in the assessable value. Applying this legal principle to the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the packing charges for the conveyor belt were not meant for marketing but solely for safe transportation, aligning with the Supreme Court's directive. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the contract terms, the purpose of packing, and the relevant legal precedent set by the Supreme Court regarding the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of goods.