9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation before the Tribunal. On the earlier occasion, Tribunal had remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit by its ORDER No. S-1394/KOL/2012 dated. 15.10.12. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Plywood and Block Boards classifiable under chapter no.4480.90 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2001 was issued alleging wrong availment of various discounts. The Commissioner Central Excise by an Adjudication Order dated 21.08.2002, confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalties. Assessee filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal bearing No. EDM 171/2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its depot price list and customers were also informed in advance before the sales took place about such abatements. b) The issue involved in the instant case stands settled by various decisions of the Courts including the Apex Court, both under old section 4 and Section 4 of the Act effective from July 1, 2000. It is now settled law that if the same discounts available are made known to all the buyers at or before clearance of the goods from the factory, is deductable from the assessable value across the board irrespective of whether each customer avails of the said discount or not. In this respect, reliance is placed upon the following decisions : - i) The Purolator India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s availed were of the quantities actually passed on to the customers, however, the Commissioner has denied that these "bills/invoices" reflected goods which originated from the Banganagar Unit of the appellant and sold therefrom. d) Part of the demand issued beyond the prescribed period of one year is barred by limitation. By letters dated November 10, 1997 and April 29, 1998 addressed to the assessee, the Range Superintendent had confirmed that provisional assessments were finalised after scrutiny of depot sales bills with invoices and challans. Differential duties were duly paid by the appellant thereafter and the assessments were treated as final. The Commissioner has ignored this settled legal position. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first issue thus stands in favour of the appellant. 8. We find that the demand was based on the particulars contained in the copies of invoices/bills generated at the Banganagar branch office, which were submitted by the appellant. The demand raised in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order related to those invoices/bills of the Banganagar Unit of the appellant. The fact that the said invoices/bills pertained to goods of the Banganagar Unit of the appellant, is apparent from the said bills/invoices The word "Bill" marked on the bills/invoices clearly indicate that the goods in question belonged to Banganagar Unit of the appellant. The Commissioner was therefore not justified to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
