Post-clearance handling charges excluded from assessable value where records did not show factory-level incidence or valuation basis.

Post-clearance handling charges shown in invoices under Rule 52A were not includible in assessable value because the notice and record did not show that the charges, or any identifiable part of them, were incurred at the factory or formed part of the value for excise purposes. The adjudicating authority's split of the charges lacked factual basis, while the appellate view treated the expenditure as related to transport beyond the factory and destination-linked handling. Unsupported and arbitrary inclusion in the assessable value could not be sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether post-clearance handling charges shown in invoices under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were includible in the assessable value and whether the demand and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The notice and the record did not establish that the charges, or any identifiable part of them, were incurred at the factory or otherwise formed part of the assessable value. The adjudicating authority had split the charges without a factual basis, while the appellate authority found that the expenditure related to transport beyond the factory and destination-related handling. Such unsupported and arbitrary inclusion could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The charges were not includible in the assessable value and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---