ORDER
U.L. Bhat, President
1. The appellant, receiving the notice of hearing had sent a request praying for adjournment or a decision on merits. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing Shri Mohammed Ali, JDR and perusing the papers.
2. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, had included in the declared price Rs. 2.85 per crate of 24 bottles to be collected from the buyers. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 16-8-1974 to 16-8-1975. The duty, having been paid at the time of clearances on the approved value, the appellant filed a claim seeking refund of Rs. 5,27,881.70 being the duty on that part of the assessable value arrived at on computation @ 2.85 per crate, alleging that the amount was collected as freight charges and cannot be included in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector originally rejected the refund claim on merits as also on the ground that it was partly barred by time. This order was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal directing the A.C. to allow the refund after excluding transport charges from the assessable value of the product in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Bombay Tyres International Ltd. case. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector considered the details of the claim and allowed refund of Rs. 85,922.45 on the basis of the expenditure incurred on account of salaries and wages relating to Sales Department, Shipping Department, Technical Department and Administrative Department as well as P.F., gratuity, rents, rates and taxes, insurance, repairs of trucks and garage, depreciation etc. worked out @ 1.31 per crate. The Collector (Appeals) having confirmed the order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. In the written submission made before us, the appellant claims additional refund on account of the following elements of cost, namely, repaid and maintenance of shells, repair of trollies, commission to salesmen and helpers, bottle breakage, uniform expenses, and repair and maintenance of coolers. The appellant also challenges the finding that a part of the claim would be barred by time.
4. The expression “Shells” used by the appellant is rather vague. However, the claim is explained at page 10 of the appeal memorandum where it is stated as follows :-
“Repair and Maintenance of Shells, Bottles Breakage :-
These are expenses towards durable and returnable packing and in any case are specifically provided for as deduction under the provisions of Section 4.”
5. If the repair and maintenance of cost of shells was in respect of durable packing, the same cannot be allowed as transport expenses. The remand by the Tribunal was made with a specific direction to deduct only the transport expenses from the assessable value and work out the amount of refund. If the appellant was entitled to any deduction on account of durable or returnable packing, the appellant should have pursued the matter before the Tribunal on the earlier occasion. The statutory authority should be bound by the directions issued by the Tribunal and at this stage, we cannot go behind the earlier order. Therefore, the disallowance of the earlier order has to stand.
6. The expenses on repair of trollies would certainly be admissible on deduction since trollies are used at the buyers’ end for the purpose of transport of the goods to the premises of the buyers. So also the uniform expenses and the expenses for the uniform of drivers and helpers in the course of transport. There is a claim based on ‘Commission to Salesmen and Helpers’. Commission to salesmen cannot be deducted, but if helpers are engaged in the course of transport, payment made to them has to be regarded as part of the transport expenses and the same has to be deducted from the assessable value. But expenses referable to bottle breakages and repairs and maintenance of coolers cannot be regarded as transport expenses.
7. We, therefore, hold that expenses incurred on repair of trollies, commission paid to helpers for work if any, done in the course of transportation of the goods and expenses for uniform for drivers and helpers have to be deducted from the assessable value and the proportionate amount has to be refunded (in addition to the amount already refunded).
8. Refund claim was filed on 31-3-1976 in respect of the duty paid during the period from 16-8-1974 to 16-8-1975. Ex facie a part of the claim would be barred by time, as rightly held by the lower authorities.
9. The impugned orders are set aside in regard to refund referable to expenses incurred for repair of trollies, expenses for uniforms of drivers and helpers and commission paid to helpers involved in transportation and it is directed that the adjudicating authority will work out the proportionate duty on this account and pass an appropriate order. It will be the duty of the appellant to provide necessary break up figures to enable the adjudicating authority to pass a proper order. Appeal is allowed.