Assessable value cannot be enhanced by indirect overheads unless specific facts, figures, and pleadings support the valuation claim.

Indirect overheads may be included in assessable value only where the department pleads and substantiates the factual basis and quantification for the loading. In this matter, establishment and contingency charges could not be added to the assessable value of RCC poles because the revenue did not set out element-wise facts, figures, or supporting material in the appeal, and the assessee had not been put on notice of any new basis. The Tribunal therefore refused to entertain the unsupported valuation claim at the appellate stage and dismissed the appeals in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether establishment and contingency charges could be added to the assessable value of RCC poles under the valuation rules without supporting facts and figures.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same issue and held that, although indirect overheads may in principle be capable of inclusion in cost of production, such a plea cannot be entertained unless the department sets out the necessary factual basis and quantification in the grounds of appeal or narration of facts. The revenue had not specifically pleaded the element-wise basis for loading the charges, and the respondents had not been put on notice of any such new material.

Conclusion: The addition of establishment and contingency charges to the assessable value was not allowed, and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order affirms that valuation additions based on indirect overheads must rest on pleaded and substantiated facts, and unsupported attempts to enlarge assessable value cannot be accepted at the appellate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to include indirect overheads in assessable value under the valuation rules must be supported by specific facts, figures, and pleadings; otherwise, it cannot be entertained for the first time in appeal.

---