Assessable value deductions: cash discount and freight remanded, while special packing charges were disallowed for lack of proof.

Cash discount may be deducted from assessable value if the discount policy was communicated before clearance, and the record required fresh verification of contemporaneous circulars and customer communications, so the issue was remanded. Special packing charges were not deductible because the purchase orders were found not genuine and the evidence did not establish clearance in special packing at buyers' instance, so the disallowance was upheld. Freight deduction depended on proper evidentiary scrutiny of actual expenditure, and the claim was therefore remanded for reconsideration. Penalty-related questions were left open to be decided afresh after remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash discount was deductible from the sale price for determination of assessable value; (ii) Whether deduction towards special packing charges was admissible; (iii) Whether freight charges were deductible and required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether cash discount was deductible from the sale price for determination of assessable value.

Analysis: Cash discount is not denied merely because all customers do not avail it, provided the discount policy is made known before clearance. The record contained contemporaneous business policy circulars and subsequent customer communications, and these materials required verification by the adjudicating authority. The distinction drawn by the adjudicating authority between the pre and post 01.07.2000 periods was no longer material in view of the governing law on transaction value.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh verification and reconsideration in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction towards special packing charges was admissible.

Analysis: The claim for special packing was rejected because the purchase orders relied upon were found not genuine and no further convincing evidence was produced to show that the goods were cleared in special packing at the instance of buyers. Mere reference to some invoices describing goods as loose or bundles was insufficient to establish admissibility of the deduction.

Conclusion: The disallowance of special packing charges was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether freight charges were deductible and required reconsideration.

Analysis: Although the adjudicating authority had rejected the claim on the footing that freight was only notionally claimed, the statements and replies on record indicated that actual freight expenditure had been worked out at the end of the financial year. Since admissibility depended on evidentiary scrutiny, the issue required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for reconsideration on cash discount and freight deduction, while the denial of special packing deduction was sustained, leaving penalty-related questions open for decision afresh after remand.

---