Packing charges at customer request were excluded, while failure to prove declared value difference led to rejection

Packing charges were treated as excludable where they were incurred at the customer's request, so the revision on that point was allowed. By contrast, the petitioners failed to prove the difference in value declared in their price list, and the other revision was rejected on that factual basis. The document reflects that entitlement to the claimed treatment depended on proof of the commercial arrangement and the declared value difference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether packing charges separately billed at the customer's request were liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods; (ii) Whether deductions from the invoice price on account of freight, loading and unloading, open delivery charges, representative's expenses, recutting charges and service charges were allowable where such components were not separately indicated or identifiable.

Issue (i): Whether packing charges separately billed at the customer's request were liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis: The packing was undertaken at the customer's request and the charges were separately billed. Since the charges were identifiable and distinct from the value of the goods, there was no basis to add them to the assessable value.

Conclusion: The packing charges were not includible in the assessable value, and relief was granted to the assessee on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether deductions from the invoice price on account of freight, loading and unloading, open delivery charges, representative's expenses, recutting charges and service charges were allowable where such components were not separately indicated or identifiable.

Analysis: The claimed deductions were not shown separately in the invoices and could not be attributed with certainty to any particular head. In the absence of identifiable evidence supporting the claimed abatements, the differential duty demand could not be disturbed.

Conclusion: The claimed deductions were disallowed and the demand for differential duty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision proceedings succeeded only to the extent of exclusion of separately billed packing charges, while the challenge to the differential duty based on other unsegregated deductions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Only charges that are separately identifiable and shown to be incurred at the customer's request can be excluded from assessable value; deductions not separately established on the evidence are not allowable.

---