TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of any evidence, each and every sales invoices raised by the appellant could be a separate transaction and Central Excise duty is payable on the amounts received for such invoices. The demand of duty as raised by the various impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2654/05, E/86398/16, E/232 - 235/10, E/1227 and 1228/11 - A/85317-85324/17/EB - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR), for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran All these appeals are filed by appellant against orders-in-appeal No. BR/100/Th-II/2005 dated 27.04.2005, SK/118/Th-II/2016 dated 11.03.2016, SB/86-89/Th-II/2009 dated 13.11.2009 and SK/118/Th-II/2016 dated 11.03.2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. Since the issue involved in these cases is same and in respect of very same assessee, all these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts arise for consideration are appellant was engaged in manufacturing of excisable goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agent is already included in the assessable value of the machines sold directly and excise duty is discharged; which he submits is not in dispute. It is his submission that the dispute is regarding the sales made directly to the selling agent. He would submit that the selling agent also purchases the Pneumatics control equipment and parts thereof and sells the same in the market/area allocated to him. The submission of the learned Counsel is that this kind of sale is direct sale on principal to principal basis between the appellant and sales agents hence a discount of 10% to 20% is given based on quantum of offtake. He would submit that this discount which has been given by the appellant is sought to be taxed and duty demanded on the ground that this is a commission hence liable to duty. He would draw our attention to the fact that the period involved in these two cases are pre and post 01.07.2000. It is his submission that the sales agent can also be a purchaser of the goods. He would submit that for the period prior to 01.07.2000 sales to sale agents is an independent transaction hence discounts are eligible to be deducted from the assessable value. 4.1 As regards demand post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicate that the activities of the agents on the amount paid as discount to them were brought to the notice of the department in time. He would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. - 2006 (193) ELT 3 (S.C.) and Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. 1984 (17) ELT 607 (S.C.) for the proposition that service charge paid to the selling agent for the services rendered and the goods are supplied directly are includable in the assessable value because they were not in the nature of the trade discount. It is his submission that the amounts shown in the invoices of the sales agents are nothing but commission are not trade discount hence the decision of the Azad Rubber Company Pvt Ltd - 1988 (36) ELT 528 (Cal.), Deekeens Polyesters P. Ltd. - 2009 (234) ELT 129 (Tri. - Ahmd.) will apply. 4.4 After hearing both sides for sometime on the merits of the case and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding demand of duty on the amounts deducted by the appellant as trade discount from the invoices issued to the sale agent. It is the case of the Revenue that this amount deducted as trade discount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he passes on the CENVAT credit of the excise duty paid on the finished goods to the ultimate customer. It is also found from the statement or Shri Bhagvat he is also functioning as sales agent and procuring orders for the appellant directly from the customers for which he gets a commission. 4.5 We find that the existence of both these transactions are not disputed and especially the 2 nd transaction of sale principal to principal basis is evidenced from the copy of the sales invoices which are enclosed in the appeal memo and also produced before the lower authorities. Alternatively we find that even if these discounts offered by the appellant to the sales agent in a transaction on sale of principal to principal basis is towards rendering of certain services which at the most can be called as after sale services. Reliance was placed by the lower authorities and the learned D.R. on the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) to held that such after sale services are taxable at the hands of manufacturer. The said Larger Bench decision is set aside by the Apex Court in the case of TVS Motors (supra) wherein the Apex Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
