ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. In de novo adjudication order passed, ac-, cording to Tribunal’s order, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Tinsukhia, refused the deduction of bank interest, insurance premium and handling charges etc. from the price so as to arrive at the assessable value. The Assistant Collector purportedly followed the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International and Ors. v. Union of India (reported in 1983 ELT 869 SC). The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise rejected the appeal recording the following :-
“It may be pointed out here that the appellants submitted the relevant price lists in Part 1, which shows that the normal prices of the subject excisable goods, i.e., the prices at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, are ascertainable. Such cases are covered by Section 4(1)(a) main definition Clause of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Hence, there is no ground whatsoever on the part of the appellants for loading the prices with post-manufacturing expenses as claimed. Section 4(2) ibid has got no application in the instant case. The Assistant Collector has correctly determined the values and the same are in conformity with the Supreme Court’s Judgments dated 9.5.83 and 7.10.83.”
2. Shri Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that according to the Supreme Court Judgment in M.R.F. Tyres, charges incurred on unloading, insurance and bank interest are admissible and argued that the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector wrongly rejected the claim of the appellants in this behalf. He further submitted that to the best of his knowledge, 10% of the sale of the appellants were at factory gate and that prior to the present price list and later price lists were approved on the basis of the factory gate. Shri Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate submitted that either factory gate price should be approved or all charages incurred after the removal of the goods should be deducted. Amongst such charges were transit insurance charges, cost of loading and unloading at railway station and interest paid to the bank for discounting bills.’
3. Shri Ajwani, Ld. SDR submitted that the appellants did not file the factory gate price for the price list. He further submitted that the appellants did not give the particulars of charges incurred by them but merely showed them as ‘expenses’ in their invoices. He emphasised that a perusal of the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector’s orders would show that the appellants were arguing and pleading for exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses (PME) and not for the acceptance of price list in Part 1.
4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. We have also referred to the Case Law cited by the appellants with special reference to the relevant portion of the Supreme Court Judgment. We note that for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value, all insurance charges are not deductable but only those which are incurred to insure goods in transit and similar insurance charges incurred after clearance of the goods. Insurance charges incurred to insure the goods within the factory are not eligible to be deducted for arriving at the assessable value. Bank interest paid on credit sale is deductable. Similarly, handling charges incurred outside the factory while loading and unload-ing the goods beyond factory gate are deductable. Therefore, we cannot sustain the impugned orders which have rejected the claims for deduction outright without distinguishing between the charges incurred within the factory gate and beyond the factory gate. In the circumstances, we are not happy in remanding the matter 2nd time. We are constrained to do so as all the details regarding expenses incurred can be examined only by the Assistant Collector and not at our level. Consequently, we vacate the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to reconsider the appellant’s request and to pass an order in the light of our above observations. If the appellants are able to prove to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that the insurance charges and the handling charges are incurred beyond the factory gate, such charges may be allowed deduction from the declared price. Deduction for bank interest, if interest is paid on credit sale, be allowed. With these directions, we allow the appeal by remand.