RAMA VISION LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The differential duty demands in these cases are on account of three factors. The first is that the deduction claimed by the appellant towards sales tax from the price being not allowed in full, the second being that the appellant had realised more amount towards insurance than had actually been incurred and the third being banking charges not being allowed deduction while fixing the assessable value.

(2.) In the present appeals the contention of the appellant is that deduction is required to be all over under all the three counts. The appellant has pointed out that the Commissioner has allowed deduction only in respect of the part of the sales tax actually paid (i.e. amounts paid to Uttaranchal Sales Authorities) and not the remaining amount paid to Uttar Pradesh sales authorities. The appellants have produced evidence of such payment. In regard to the excess collection on account of insurance the appellant's submission is that the excess has taken place on account of collections on average basis. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel has pointed out that such difference in amount is not required to be treated as value of the goods. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. -1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). In regard to the bank collection charges, the submission of the learned Counsel is that these are banking charges and have been held to be deductable under the earlier Valuation Section of the Central Excise Act. It is being pointed out that the definition of value remain the same under the old Section 4 and new Section 4 inasmuch as the value has to be arrived at the time of removal of the goods.

(3.) We have perused the records and heard the learned SDR also. We find merit in the submission of the appellant. Sales tax is a permissible deduction from sale price, in order to arrive at the assessable value. The error in the present cases is that on not allowing the deduction of full amounts. The demand on this count is not sustainable. The issue regarding excess collection towards insurance remains settled in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Apex Court in the above mentioned case. Eligibility of bank charges remain decided in favour of the assessee under the old section. There is no difference on this point under the new section also, inasmuch as value has to be determined at the time of removal. In the result, the appeals of the assessee succeed and are allowed with consequential relief, if any. The appeals filed by the revenue pointing out only errors in collection cannot find acceptance in view of the above findings on the issues. Therefore, they are rejected.