2025 (1) TMI 604 - AT - Central Excise

Pool charges and dealer penalties must be included in motor vehicle assessable value under Section 4

CESTAT Chandigarh held that pool cancellation charges, pool lifting charges, penalty on dealers and cancellation charges must be included in assessable ... Valuation of Excise duty - Inclusion of pool cancellation charges, pool lifting charges, penalty on dealers and cancellation charges in the assessable value of the motor vehicles - HELD THAT:- The impugned appeals pertain to Show Cause Notices issued for the subsequent to the period for which the issue was decided by this Bench in [2024 (7) TMI 545 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that 'it is apparent that the pool charges relate to the transaction of sale of additional vehicles, that the appellant has entered into with the dealers. We find that, as rightly held by the Commissioner, as per Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the „transaction value' means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any other time. including, but not limited to, any amount charged for, or to make provision for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty commission or any other matter, but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods.' Conclusion - The appellants are required to include the pool lifting charges in the assessable value of the vehicles cleared by them. All the demands are sustained and penalties are set aside; cum-duty benefit is ordered to be accorded - Appeal allowed in part. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the pool cancellation charges, pool lifting charges, and penalties on dealers are includible in the assessable value of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellants.Whether the appellants are entitled to cum-duty benefit in the calculation of the assessable value.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Inclusion of Pool Charges and Penalties in Assessable ValueRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of assessable value is guided by Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines 'transaction value' as the price actually paid or payable for the goods, including any amount the buyer is liable to pay to the assessee in connection with the sale.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the pool lifting charges are directly related to the sale of additional vehicles and are therefore part of the transaction value. The penal charges, however, were deemed not related to the vehicles sold and thus not includible in the assessable value.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal examined the appellants' Planned Order in System (POS) and found that pool lifting charges are incurred when dealers acquire vehicles from a pool, making them part of the transaction value.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Section 4 of the Central Excise Act to conclude that pool lifting charges, as additional consideration received during the sale of vehicles, must be included in the assessable value.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that pool lifting charges are independent transactions, not affecting the marketability of vehicles. The Tribunal rejected this, citing that these charges are directly connected to the sale of additional vehicles.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that pool lifting charges are includible in the assessable value, while penal charges are not.Issue 2: Entitlement to Cum-Duty BenefitRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of cum-duty benefit allows the assessable value to be calculated inclusive of duty, effectively reducing the duty payable by the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellants are entitled to cum-duty benefit in certain appeals, as previously decided in similar cases involving the appellants.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referred to previous orders where cum-duty benefit was extended to the appellants, establishing a precedent for similar treatment in the current appeals.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of cum-duty benefit to the appeals, ensuring that the assessable value reflects the duty-inclusive price.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not find any compelling arguments against extending cum-duty benefit, as it aligned with previous decisions.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that cum-duty benefit should be extended to the appellants in the relevant appeals.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The pool lifting charges are received by the appellants over and above the transaction value reflected in the sale invoices issued at the time of sale of the vehicles by the appellants to their dealers. Therefore, the same is to be treated as a consideration received by the appellants in course of sale of vehicles to the dealers.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that charges directly related to the sale of goods must be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Additionally, it affirmed the extension of cum-duty benefit where applicable.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that pool lifting charges are includible in the assessable value, while penal charges are not. Cum-duty benefit is to be extended to the appellants in relevant appeals, and penalties were set aside.