TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, as the same can be mentioned only when the goods are sold from the depot. Appeal is allowed with consequential benefit subject to necessary safeguards. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/2360/05 - A/85426/16/EB - Dated:- 12-1-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: RAJU The appellants, manufacturer of P P Medicines, were clearing the goods to their depot from where the said goods were sold to independent buyers. The appellants cleared certain goods to their depot during July, 2003 to November, 2003. After clearance of goods from factory to their depot, they sold the same to the customers after offering the quantity discount on the same. The appellants filed a refund claim seeking refund on the ground that the assessable value for the purpose of assessment should be the value arrived at after giving the quantity discount and not the value at which the goods wee cleared from factory to depot. The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities relying on the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty, or from which such excisable goods are to be sold after clearance from a factory. In fact, Section 4(2) pre-2000 made it clear that where the price of excisable goods for delivery at the place of removal is not known, and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be excluded from such price. This is because the value of excisable goods under the Section is to be determined only at the time and place of removal. Even after the amendment of Section 4 in 2000, the same scheme continues. Only, Section 4(2) is in terms replaced by Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 18. It can be seen that Section 4 as amended introduces the concept of transaction value so that on each removal of excisable goods, the transaction value of such goods becomes determinable. Whereas previously, the value of such excisable goods was the price at which such goods were ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade, post amendment each transaction is looked at by itself. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty; (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed; In these circumstances, it is clear that the price at which the goods are cleared from the factory to the depot does not become the assessable value for the purpose of assessment. The Revenues reliance on the decision of MRF Ltd. (supra) is not correct in so far as in that case the goods were cleared from the factory premises and not from the depot and, therefore, the facts are substantially different. The decision of Tribunal in the case of Camphor Allied Products (supra), pertains to the period prior to the introduction of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Revenue has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra). In the said case, Tribunal has observed as follows: - 7. During the period of dispute, the appellant had given quantity discount to their customers as per their quantity discount schemes and as per these quantity discount schemes, on buying certain quantity of goods, certain quantity of goods was offered free or in other words price charged was for quantity lesser than the quantity actually supplied, which has the effect of reducing the net sale price. The main contention of the department is that the deduction of quantity discount cannot be allowed, as the same, was not mentioned in the Central Excise invoices issued at the time of clearance from the factory. This plea of the department is not correct as when the goods are first stock transferred from the factory to the depot on payment of duty and are sold from the depot the quantity discount cannot be mentioned in the Central Excise invoices issued at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Madras Rubber Factory (supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood during the period prior to 1-7-2000 and in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
