TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal, on which reliance has been placed by learned authorized representative appearing for the department, would not be applicable in the present case as they do not deal with discounts which though known at the time of clearance of the goods cannot be quantified at that stage and are quantified later. The appeal filed by the department deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 51411 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50824/2022 - Dated:- 1-9-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V.SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative of the Department Shri Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The Commissioner, Central Excise, Udaipur [ th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealers and quantification of these discounts is done at a later point of time. It is for this reason that the respondent made a request for provisional assessment for the financial year 2017-18. 5. It also transpires from the records that a show cause notice for the earlier financial year 2016-17 was issued to the appellant, which was adjudicated by order dated June 30, 2016 rejecting the request for provisional assessment for the financial year 2016-17. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal and by order dated July 29, 2019 the appeal was allowed. 6. The present appeal arises out of the fresh show cause notice dated May 15, 2017 issued to the respondent for the financial year 2017-18. This notice was adjudicated by order dated Oct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared from their factory premises. I hold that the appellant is correctly paying excise duty on provisional basis by adopting of notional transaction value price. 7. On the last occasion, when the matter was heard, Ms. Sukriti Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had placed the Division Bench decision dated July 29, 2019 of the Tribunal in the matter of the respondent itself for the previous year 2016-17, which, as noticed above, was in respect of the show cause notice dated May 10, 2017 which was adjudicated upon by the order June 30, 2016 and the request for provisional assessment was rejected. 8. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned authorized representative appearing for the department had sought time to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions, and the Circular dated June 30, 2016, the Tribunal observed as follows: 11. The bare perusal of the Circular is sufficient to clarify that the discounts are permissible, even if, quantified subsequent to the clearances of the goods through the sales taking place from depots/ consignment agents and that the assessee is correctly paying the excise duty on provisional basis by adopting of notional transaction value twice. 12. In Appeal No. E/52692/2018 the request for provisional assessment has been rejected. The above discussion about adjudicating first issue, as framed, has clarified that though the availability of the discounts was known at the time of clearance of the goods, these were quantified later but are to be deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
