TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of allowing discounts. Trade practice of allowing quantitative discounts and the aspect of adjustment of the excise duty in conformity with the discounts are allowed - The principle of taking the value for the purpose of determining tax as the transaction value of the goods, as reflected in the invoice price at the time of delivery of goods to the buyer is established- the appropriate provision applicable are the proviso (d) to Section 11-B (2) - Section 12 is relevant when the party who is liable to pay excise duty on any goods, has to file the sales invoice and other documents relating to assessment at the time of clearance of the goods itself - all the appeals are allowed – Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stands closed - Decided in favour of assessee. - C.E.A. No. 51 of 2004 And 9, 10 And 21 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2014 - Sri. G. Chandraiah And Sri Challa Kodanda,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. Vedula Srinivas For the Respondent :Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel for Central Excise JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) The appellant in all these Central Excise Appeals is the A.P. Paper Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered quantitative discounts and other discounts and the invoices were revised accordingly. The scheme of offering discounts was informed to the department from time to time. At the time of clearing the goods from the factory premises, the appellant had paid the excise duty on the invoices amount. Later, when the invoices were revised, the excise duty component, which was collected from the dealers initially, was revised in terms of the revised invoice price, which was lower than the invoice amount, which was initially issued. The difference of amount in excise duty, which was collected, was given credit to the dealers, thereby the actual amount of excise duty collected from the dealers was corresponding to the revised invoices subsequently issued. These facts are not in dispute, as the same were found by the primary authority and also by the appellate authority. There is also no challenge to these findings of fact recorded by the authorities concerned even before the Tribunal and also before this court in the present appeals. 3. Applications were made by the appellant - company before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, seeking refund of the excess amount of the centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision (Grasim Ind (Chemical Divn) vs. C.C.E. Bhopal - 2003 (153) ELT 694, S.Kumar's Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Indore - 2003 (153) ELT 217 etc.). In the legal position obtaining from these decisions, we find no merit in the present appeals of the assessee. They fail and are rejected. 7. Learned counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas would submit that at the first instance, the first appellate authority committed a grievous error in placing reliance on CESTAT's decision in M/s Addison Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras (1997(93)ELT 429 supra). He would submit that the Madras High Court had reversed the order of the Tribunal in the said decision, which in fact was reported in Addison Co. v. Commissioner (2 supra). Unfortunately, even the appellate Tribunal had failed to notice this crucial aspect, inasmuch as the very basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the claim of the appellant was the Tribunal's decision in M/s Addison Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras (1997(93)ELT 429 supra). He would further submit that the reasons given by the appellate Tribunal that the issue is squarely covered by the orders of the Tribunal in SANGAM PROCESSORS (BHILWARA) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF C.EXCISE, JAIPUR 1994(71)E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to the finding of fact that the appellant - company had failed to establish that the appellant had not refunded the excise duty component, which was claimed now as refund. This goes against the findings of fact as recorded by the authorities below. 10. It is well settled that while dealing with the matters arising under Section 35-G of the Act, the High Court being the creature of the statute, is bound to accept the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In this case, the orders of the primary and first appellate authorities have merged with the orders of the Tribunal and the Tribunal by itself did not disturb any of the findings of fact as recorded by the authorities below. In that view of the matter, both the authorities, primary as well as the appellate, had categorically recorded that the appellant - company had in fact, had made over the excise duty component, which was collected originally on revision of the invoice price, in the process of allowing discounts. 11. We are also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of Sangam Processor's case (4 supra) has no application to the facts of the cases on hand, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aling with the precedent value of the dismissal of S.L.P. by a non-speaking order. The same is evident from the reference of the Tribunal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in KUNHAYAMMED v. STATE OF KERALA 2001(129) E.L.T. 11(S.C.). 15. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the appellant's own case, by judgment dated 20.8.2010 in C.E.A.Nos.95 of 2010 and batch, dismissed the appeals of the department against the orders of the Tribunal granting refund of the excess amount of excise duty paid consequent to the grant of various discounts like cash discount, quantity surplus, freight rebate etc., to their customers. The period covered in those appeals was between May, 1996 to November, 1999. The entire judgment of the Division Bench is on the well settled principle of taking the value for the purpose of determining tax as the transaction value of the goods, as reflected in the invoice price at the time of delivery of goods to the buyer. 16. In our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Addision Co. v. Commissioner (2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.) supra). 17. In the light of the discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
