Judgment:
1. All these three appeals arise from common order passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the rejection of claim for deductions of freight and other packing expenses "Railway siding from the assessable value; loading and unloading charges and other expenses like demurrage and Wharfage.
2. It was contended by ld. Advocate before us that the railway siding charges are maintenance charges given to the railway department which undertakes the maintenance during the year. This is done inside the factory premises and includes all other charges connected with the railway siding paid to the railways. As regards, the demurrage and wharfage paid on account of delay in the loading and unloading of the wagons beyond the free time allowed are incurred during the process of transportation and it was pleaded that there were admissible for deduction as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International case. The same plea was raised with regard to loading and unloading expenses incurred for loading and unloading of final products into or out of the railways wagons within the factory premises.
3. Ld. DR Shri M. Ali pointed out that these loading and unloading charges including the railway siding charges are done within the premises and therefore, they are includible in the assessable value. He also pointed out the judgment rendered in the case of Govt. of India v.Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. The transportation charges incurred within the premises of the factory are includible. He also relied on the following judgments pertaining to railway siding charges :SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 1997 (90) E.L.T. 502Nichrome Metal Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune 1996 (88) E.L.T. 448Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, CalcuttaHindustan Lever Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore 1997 (89) E.L.T. 720Amur Dye Chem Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1997 (91) E.L.T. 187 He also pointed out that the railway siding was part of the factory and that they have shown the same in their factory.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the charges in respect of railway siding/demurrage and wharfage, loading and unloading are carried out within the factory premises. It is not the contention of the appellants that these charges are incurred outside the factory premises. It is also not their contention that the factory premises does not comprise of railway siding. In that view of the matter, the lower authorities have followed the settled position of law in rejecting the prayer of their deductions of these charges.
5. On the perusal of the judgments referred to by ld. DR that the issue is no longer res integra and Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory that charges incurred within the factory and loading and unloading are required to be included in the assessable value. In the case of SAIL v. CCE, the Tribunal has held that railway siding and haulage charges incurred inside factory premises are not deductible from assessable value. In the case of Nichrome Metal Works v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 448, the Tribunal has held that loading and forwarding charges incurred within the factory before clearance of the goods are includible in the assessable value. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Bombay Tyre International - 1983 (14) E.L.T.1896 have been relied. This judgment is also supported by another judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Ltd. v. CCE which is on the same lines. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE (supra) on the same lines with regard to handling charges which has been held to be includible in the assessable value. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these appeals and hence the same are dismissed.