2009 (9) TMI 866 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Turnover Discount, Prompt Payment Discount, Sales Tax/Octroi, Application of CAS4 to valuation of intermediate goods for the period prior to 13-2-03.

Turnover Discount: The respondents claimed a 1.06% turnover discount, slightly higher than the company policy of 1%. The Chartered Accountant certified that this percentage represented the actual turnover discount given. The Tribunal found this calculation supported and admissible, as it was based on certification.

Prompt Payment Discount: The respondents had given up their claim for prompt payment discount before the original authority. As the respondents were not claiming this discount anymore, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue, stating that the dispute no longer existed.

Valuation of Intermediate Goods: The issue of applying CAS4 standards to the valuation of intermediate goods for the period prior to 13-2-03 was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. Cadbury India Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged this settled issue based on the Supreme Court's decision.

Deductions on Account of Sales Tax/Octroi: The respondents claimed deductions on account of turnover discount and sales tax/Octroi based on computations by their Chartered Accountant. The deductions were supported by the clarificatory order issued by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Others v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found the deductions claimed by the respondents to be reasonable and in accordance with the Supreme Court's approval, hence rejecting the appeal filed by the department.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's order, stating that the deductions claimed by the respondents were reasonable and did not warrant any interference. The appeal filed by the department was rejected based on the facts and circumstances of the case.