2016 (9) TMI 1297 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - handling charges - postage - penalty - Held that - There is no evidence to support the contention of the appellant today to prove that it was supplementary and optional for the appellant to meet the obligation of the buyer. In absence of such evidence the duty liability stands sustained - considering the legal interpretation involved the penalties imposed are waived - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether handling charges shall form part of the assessable value.
2. Whether postage shall form part of the assessable value.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai involved two main issues. The first issue was whether handling charges should be included in the assessable value. The Appellant argued that these charges were post-clearance and should not be considered. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that it was the obligation of the Appellant to make the goods available to the buyer, making handling charges a part of the assessable value. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the Appellant's claim that handling charges were supplementary and optional. Consequently, the authorities below were deemed to have acted correctly in upholding the duty liability in both appeals.

The second issue revolved around whether postage should be included in the assessable value. The Appellant's legal counsel highlighted that an error in the interpretation of valuation should not result in undue hardship through penalty imposition. Acknowledging the legal complexity of the interpretation, the Tribunal decided to waive the penalties imposed in both appeals. Ultimately, the appeals were partly allowed to the extent of waiving the penalties, considering the legal nuances and the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the inclusion of handling charges and postage in the assessable value, emphasizing the obligation of the Appellant and the lack of evidence supporting their claims. The decision to waive penalties based on the legal interpretation involved showcased a balanced approach by the Tribunal in resolving the issues at hand.