2016 (3) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant by upholding the order-in-original No. KDN/11/SBN/2004 dated 14/9/2004. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant are the manufacturer of P & P Medicines falling under sub-heading No. 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They cleared their excisable goods first to depot and while selling goods through distributors, they have given quantity discount. The Revenue objected and disallowed quantity discount on the ground that the quantity discount scheme should be known prior to clearance of the goods from the factory and therefore the quantity discount was disallowed. Aggrieved by the Adjudication order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who rejected the same therefore appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that as per the above judgments, it is necessary that the scheme of discount should be predetermined before the clearance of the goods from the factory, therefore the discount was rightly disallowed in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that this fact is not under dispute that the goods were first cleared from the factory not for sale but as a stock transfer to their depot and from depot the actual sale has taken place. The correct sale value and discount if any, can only be determined and reflected in the sale bill and same is irrelevant in case of clearance from factory to depot as said transaction is not the sale transaction therefore even if all the judgments relied u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t therefore the price excluding the quantity discount is an amount payable at the time of sale or at any other time. Hence the excluding the discount value is the correct transaction value and duty cannot be charged on the discount amount which is neither paid nor payable in the case of sale of the goods. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III[2015(323) ELT 227(S.C.)] has observed as under: 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X