Provisional assessment deductions require factual support; freight failed, while bill discounting and secondary packing claims were remanded.

In finalising a provisional assessment, deduction from assessable value for freight charges was refused because freight had been shown separately and the factual basis for the claim was not established. The rejection of that deduction was upheld. Claims for interest and bank charges on bill discounting, and for expenditure on secondary packing, required reconsideration on merits. The secondary packing claim could not be rejected merely because it was raised later, especially in provisional assessment finalisation under Rule 9B(5). Those claims were remanded for de novo decision. The assessee succeeded only to the extent of obtaining fresh consideration of the latter deductions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deduction from assessable value was allowable towards freight charges; (ii) Whether the claims for deduction towards interest and bank charges on bill discounting and expenditure on secondary packing were to be considered on merits.

Issue (i): Whether deduction from assessable value was allowable towards freight charges.

Analysis: The price list was being finalised in a context where freight had been shown separately and the cost particulars necessary to support the claim were not established. On the material before it, the adjudicating authority's rejection of deduction under this head called for no interference.

Conclusion: The deduction claim towards freight charges was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claims for deduction towards interest and bank charges on bill discounting and expenditure on secondary packing were to be considered on merits.

Analysis: The claims for interest and bank charges had to be examined in the light of the governing principles on bill discounting charges, and the claim for secondary packing could not be rejected merely because it was not advanced at the first instance, particularly when the assessment was provisional and was being finalised under Rule 9B(5). Both matters required factual and legal reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The claims towards interest and bank charges on bill discounting and expenditure on secondary packing were remanded for de novo decision.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only to the extent of obtaining reconsideration of the claims for interest and bank charges on bill discounting and secondary packing, while the freight deduction claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In finalisation of a provisional assessment, all sustainable deduction claims may be examined on merits, but a deduction claim must still be supported by the necessary factual basis and governing valuation principles.

---