ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Appellants manufacture Petrol Bunk Pumps. Valuation of the products supplied as per purchase orders placed by Petroleum Distributing Companies on prices settled and duty paid therein without claim of any deductions is questioned.
2. (a) Rejecting the Transaction Price, the department went into invoke Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1975 for the period 1-4-2000 to 30-6-2000 & Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2001 without any material on record to bring out additional consideration for the sales effected.
(b) The department, pursuant to certain Audit conducted obtained figures of Warranty allocation break up and questioned the tender prices approved by Petroleum Companies. The job of providing warranty was out sourced to one M/s. Oilco Service (India) Ltd. after April, 2000 & up to that date the assessee was providing the service. The’ allocation for such service cost? was effected on a rational basis between the three plants from the common expense incurred on the sale values. These allocations were on accounting exercise as warranty charges were not separately recovered from the oil companies. These allocations of warranty costs were proposed to be added. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard both sides and find :
(a) There is no material on record of any additional amount directly or indirectly flowing from the buyers to the sellers qua warranty or on any other head. The allocations made are only an exercise in accounting conducted by the Company amongst its three factories and cannot be additional consideration or any consideration to upset the sale price from being a normal sale price under Section 41(a) up to 30-6-2000 & Transaction Price after 1-7-2000.
(b) The Additional Commissioner finding, that no Chartered Accountant Certificate produced, without seeking one, to dismiss the plea can be only set aside.
(c) There can be no misallocation as alleged of warranty service charges. Hence the Company conducts its business and distributes receipts and costs cannot be material to consider when normal sale price/Transaction Price under Section 41(a) are available.
(d) We find no reason to invoke the valuation under any of the valuation rules in the facts of this case.
4. We find no reason to depart from the sale price as approved by tenders and on which no deduction have been claimed to be the values on which duty is to be paid.
5. No case made out on merits. We therefore do not propose to go into other issues raised.
6. Appeal is allowed after setting aside the order.
(Pronounced in Court)