Proof of deductible charges in assessable value failed where primary records were not produced and packing was treated as necessary.

Refund was denied where the assessee failed to prove that freight, transit insurance and secondary packing charges were actually excluded from assessable value. The claim that deductions omitted from the price list could still be sought by refund was rejected, but the decisive defect was lack of proof of the actual expenditure. A chartered accountant's certificate based only on books of account was insufficient, and the relevant primary records were not produced despite repeated requests. Packing in corrugated or wooden boxes was treated as necessary for sale and transport in the absence of contrary evidence. The assessee therefore did not establish entitlement to exclusion of the claimed amounts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund on the ground that freight, transit insurance and secondary packing charges had been wrongly included in the assessable value, and whether the assessee had proved the quantum of such charges.

Analysis: The claim that deductions not taken in the price list could not be claimed by way of refund was rejected. The decisive question was proof of the actual expenditure. The only supporting material was a chartered accountant's certificate based on books of account, not primary documents. Despite repeated requests, the relevant records were not produced before the authority or at the appellate stage. As to packing, the goods were admittedly cleared in corrugated boxes or wooden boxes, and in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, such packing was treated as necessary for sale and transport.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish entitlement to exclusion of the claimed amounts from assessable value. The refund claim was not sustainable.

---