Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of removal from the factory on the value of the goods at the depots, while the duty has been paid by the appellant on price equal to MRP minus 35% at the time of removal from the factory, There is no evidence produced by the Department that at the time of removal, the goods were being sold from the depots at the full MRP price without any abatement. The appellant is required to pay duty at the value, the price on which the goods have been cleared from the depots i.e. the assessable value and the appellant had paid duty accordingly. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1450-1451/2009 - Final Order No. 60124-60125/2018 - Dated:- 16-2-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e invoices for removal from the factory without any abatement. It is on this basis that two show cause notice; one for the period from October 2006 to February 2007 and another for the period for March 2007 were issued for recovery of differential duty amounting to ₹ 17,68,133/- and Rs, 5,86,593/- respectively alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. Both the show causes notices were adjudicated by Joint Commissioner and vide order 47/CE/JC/2008 dated, September 16, 2008 and 48/CE/JC/2008 dated, September 24, 2008, the duty demands were confirmed alongwith interest and penalties of equal amount were imposed. 3. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against these two orders, the Commissioner (Appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pots was MRP less 41.33% as the appellants were giving various discounts like general trade discount of upto 25% on purchase of stipulated quantities as per the sales orders, cash discount upto 3.5%, prompt payment discount upto 1%, quarter ending discount upto 6% given on purchase of stipulated quantities by dealers during a particular quarter, that the weighted average of the discounts is 33.57% and in addition to this, the sales tax, and local taxes are 7.75%, that the Department by disallowing 35% abatement on the invoice price, which is the MRP price, seeks to charge duty on the MRP price which is not correct, chat the appellant in the course of hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) had produced the factory invoices under which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... % on the declared MRP is allowed, the pressure cooker parts even though they are covered by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and MRP in respect of the same is required to be declared, are not covered by any notification issued under Section 4A and accordingly the assessable value in respect of pressure cooker parts is required to be determined on the basis of a transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant removed the pressure cooker parts to their depots and the same are sold from their depots and at the time of removal from factory, the duty has been paid on price equal to MRP less 35%. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal has recorded that at the time of personal hearing, the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... themselves in respect of this report of the Range Superintendent. Moreover, as per the Range Superintendent s report dated 24-2-09, the discounts passed on by the depots to the dealers vary from dealer to dealer and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant has passed on the same discounts to the ultimate customers for which the abatement had been claimed from the assessable value while clearing the goods from their factory and on this basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the appellant have not passed on the same discounts to the ultimate customers for which the abatement was claimed from the assessable value. But the appellate order is silent as to on an average how much discount was given and whether the discount plus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates