2005 (2) TMI 145 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Charges, Remands for Reassessment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, remanding the decisions on crate hire charges and sales, promotion, and publicity charges for reassessment. ... Whether the amount on account of 'crate hire charges', loading and unloading charges', 'sales, promotion and publicity charges' were includible in the assessable value of the bottles which were manufactured by the respondent-assessee? Held that:- The factual foundation on which either the Commissioner or the Tribunal came to the conclusion has not been clearly set out. We are of the view that unless the factual foundation is clear there can be no question of applying any of the aforesaid principles as enunciated in the earlier decisions. Therefore, we remand this aspect of the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner as well. In the circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the decision of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the crate hire charges and sales, promotion and publicity charges are remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for re-determining the same in the light of the observations in this judgment. The appeal insofar as it relates to the loading and unloading is dismissed. Issues:1. Inclusion of 'crate hire charges', loading and unloading charges', 'sales, promotion and publicity charges' in the assessable value of manufactured bottles.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the question of whether certain charges should be included in the assessable value of bottles manufactured by the respondent-assessee during a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially concluded that 'crate hire charges' were includible due to an unexplained rate increase, which was allegedly adjusted with the increased cost of production. However, the Tribunal disagreed, relying on the certification by the assessee's Chartered Accountant that the increased crate hire charges did not affect the cost of production. The Supreme Court found that the issue needed further examination based on prevailing facts, suggesting a reconsideration.Regarding loading and unloading charges, the Commissioner sought to include charges incurred by a distributor, alleging it was a dummy company. However, the Tribunal limited the inclusion to charges for loading finished goods within the assessee's factory. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on this matter, dismissing the appeal related to loading and unloading charges.Lastly, the question of including 'sales, promotion, and publicity charges' in the assessable value was addressed. While the Commissioner included these charges, the Tribunal did not, citing a precedent that expenses shared between a manufacturer and a dealer should not be fully included. The Court referred to previous judgments to clarify the principles regarding such expenses. However, due to unclear factual foundations in the decision-making process, the Court remanded this aspect back to the Assistant Commissioner for further consideration.In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, remanding the decisions on crate hire charges and sales, promotion, and publicity charges for reassessment. The appeal concerning loading and unloading charges was dismissed, with no order as to costs issued.