9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The goods were assessed to duty on value determined under Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules 2000. Since the price of the goods were not known to the respondent at the time of clearance of goods on account of various discounts offered by the principal manufacturer to buyers they sought provisional assessment of the goods which was granted by the original authority. Consequent to finalisation of the accounts of the principal manufacturer the assessments were also finalised by the original authority. While finalising the account, the original authority disallowed the deductions claimed by way of discounts given to buyers alleging that the respondents have not furnished necessary documents to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t opinion contrary to the certificate produced by them is erroneous. The Commissioner wrongly observed that the original authority had not done verification of records to conclude that the discounts passed on were only in the nature of post manufacturing expenses. The conclusion of the original authority is that the discounts passed on through credit notes cannot be said to be actually passed on to the buyers. In the absence of additional proof, the discounts ought not to be allowed by the Commissioner. He prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. The Learned Counsel Shri Bharat Rai Chandan appeared and argued on behalf of respondents. He referred to the cross objections filed by the respondent and stressed that the respondent had produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cost Accountant certificate has been furnished, the adjudicating authority may undertake verification of the accounts by experts within the department and not call for truckloads of documents to be produced before him. The decision in the case of Samtel India Ltd., [1998 (103) ELT 92 (Tribunal)] and the decision in the case of Nalco Chemical India Ltd., Vs CCE (1998 (104) ELT 730 (Tribunal)] was also relied to argue that principle of equalisation can be applied to determine the quantum of discounts. He argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly scrutinised the documents with the help of experts like the Assistant Director of cost and allowed the discounts. He prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 6. Heard both sides. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unilever Ltd., Vs CCE, Pondichery reported in [2016 (334) ELT 95 (Tri- Chennai)] as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reported in [2016 (334) ELT A-65 (SC)]. 9. From the discussions made in the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that the discounts were very much known to the parties before the supply. Further, discounts are passed on to the customers and hence are eligible for deduction. We find that the department has also not objected to the same and their main grounds of appeal was on the points of non-submission of the records and by the appellant. Having gone through the voluminous records submitted by the appellants and having come to the conclusion that discounts are admissible, then q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
