Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 79 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - deduction of discount - discount was given to non-performing dealers also - turnover discount was quantified at the end of calendar year, wherein dealer has sold the cars of previous year - discount was made known to dealers in advance - Held that:- the impugned order is not sustainable in respect of all the three points; as regards of extending the discount to non performing dealers, the denial of deduction of such discount from the assessable value seems to be incorrect, as there is no reason for disallowing the same. It is an admitted fact that the discount is extended to non performing dealers also and that it has been passed on. We agree with the appellant that by extending such discount it will encourage the dealers to work more efficiently and get orders for cars which will benefit the dealers as well as the appellant. Adjustment of excess payment of duty to short payment of duty on the finalisation of provisional assessment - unjust enrichment - Held that:- in the appellant's own case, as reported at [2014 (12) TMI 158 - CESTAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal has held that the discount which are extended by credit notes are also eligible for deduction. Also the same view has taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore [2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which was followed by the Principal Bench of Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs BSL Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 771 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Therefore, in view of the authoritative jurisdictional pronouncement, we have to hold that the excess payment of duty to the short payment of duty on finalisation of provisional assessment is to be allowed. Duty liability - turnover discount extended - Held that:- it is seen from circular of appellant that this turnover discount specifically states that the said discount is available to all the dealers beginning on the first day of calendar year and ends on the last day of such calendar year. Only reason given by the lower authorities for rejecting the contention that the dealer has not sold the cars manufactured and cleared to him by the appellant of the same calendar year. We find no merits in this argument as the turnover discount is an advancely intimated discount without any qualification as to which cars are to be sold to be eligible for Turnover Discount; the circular only states that to be eligible for Turnover Discount specific number of cars need to be sold in a calendar year. In such a factual position, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the appellant on the turnover discount is legitimate and needs to be extended to him. We agree with the appellant that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in the various cases. Therefore, in view of the authoritative jurisdictional pronouncement, we hold that the impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
|