TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that when sale price to independent customer is available, the same price can be adopted for valuation of the goods stock transferred. Hon ble Supreme Court in the various decisions has held that once comparable price of the similar goods to unrelated buyer is available the same can be adopted for valuation of the goods cleared for captive use - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH VERSUS BHARTI TELECOM. LTD. [ 2008 (4) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT]. Scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notices propose to demand duty by applying the provisions of Rule 7 or 8 of the Valuation Rules. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the ground that the deduction of the discount from the Ex-Factory Dealer Net Price is not admissible for arriving at the value of the chassis cleared to the body builder. The Commissioner has further held that since the discount is not passed on to the body builders, the valuation of the goods cannot be on the basis of comparable price. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, apart from sale of the chassis to independent buyers, the Appellant was also dispatching some quantity of the chassis to its body builders after payment of excise duty. It is submitted that since the sale price of the chassis to independent buyers (net of discount) was available and satisfied all the requirements of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(b) read with rule 7 of Rule 8 cannot be adopted in the instant case. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the contention of the department that since the discount was not passed on to the body builder, the deduction of the same will not be allowed, cannot be accepted in view of the judgment in the case of Havells India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Delhi 2017 (357) ELT 407 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that any discounts which are part of the agreement of sale will need to be granted even if such discounts are not passed on. The appellant further submits that the substantial part of the demand in the 1st Show Cause Notice is time barred as all the relevant facts were known to the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same price can be adopted for valuing the chassis cleared to the body builders. The Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB) has held that when sale price to independent customer is available, the same price can be adopted for valuation of the goods stock transferred. 8. We also note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following decisions has held that once comparable price of the similar goods to unrelated buyer is available the same can be adopted for valuation of the goods cleared for captive use. (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Bharti Telecom Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 3 (S.C.). (ii) Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as interpreted these provisions to mean that the appellants were required to pay duty on the goods cleared from their factory to their depot on normal transaction value referred above. Since at the time of initial clearance of goods from their depot, the appellants had not given any discount to their buyers, the deduction on account of various discounts is not applicable. The stand taken by the 1st appellate authority is clearly erroneous. The benefit of deduction of all types of discounts from the value will be available as long as the price and the discounts are known before clearance of goods from the factory. In the present case there is no dispute that the fact that various types of discounts are being allowed is very well-known. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and confirmed by the impugned order is on totally different grounds i. e. by taking into account the amounts of discounts and demanding duty thereon. The provision of Rule 7 or 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules does not empower the department to determine duty liability in this manner. Thus, the entire case made out by the department, in our view, is totally erroneous and does not have the support of any provisions of law. 13. In view of the foregoing findings and the decisions relied on by the appellant, we find merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Since we are allowing the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
