9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to other models. During the course of audit of the records, it has been observed that appellant is passing on discounts under various sales incentive/promotion schemes circulated to its dealers from time to time. The discount was declared for each model of the vehicle specifying the discount amount. The discounts have been extended for specific models. On an analysis of the discounts based on various models, it was observed that they had adopted discount methodology only for specific type of models viz., Etios, Liva, Innova and Camry hybrid models. It was accounted through reduction in the assessable value in the dealers invoices in respect of clearances of Fortuner, Innova and Corolla models which attracts higher rate of duty. Further, it was noticed that the assessable value of the vehicles was reduced by adjusting the discounts allowed by dealers on spare parts turnover sold to end-users based on the previous month turnover and also for payment of service charges for various services such as after-sales warranty expenses. It is alleged that due to cross-model discount and adjustment of discounts provided to spare parts and service charges against the value of vehicles attractin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 (323) ELT 227 (SC). He has submitted that in the present case, the price actually paid or payable as mentioned in the invoice is relevant for the purpose of assessment. The price mentioned in the invoices, which is net of the discount offered therein is the sole consideration for sale of goods which is the amount actually paid or payable. The appellants have duly discharged Central Excise duty on this amount, therefore, there is no short-payment of Excise duty. 3.2 He further submits that the vehicles have been sold by the appellant to the dealers who are unrelated parties at the price mentioned in the invoice which is the actually paid or payable by the dealer to them, thus there is no flow of additional consideration from the dealer to the appellant. In support, he has placed reliance on the decision of CCE vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.: 2016-TIOL-38-CX-LB. 3.3 Further, he has referred to the Circular dated 30.6.2003 issued by the Board wherein it has clarified that transaction value includes whatever is recovered from the buyer which is in connection with the sale and the said Circular is binding on the department. In support, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd.: 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC). He submitted that there is no specific column assigned in the ER-1 returns to mention the break-up of the elements included or deductions made in computing assessable value. The appellant has declared the total clearance value in the ER-1 returns, hence allegation of the suppression is unsustainable. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Goran Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhavnagar: 2010 (250) ELT 57 (Tri.-Ahmed.). Further, he has submitted that the present demands were based on statutory records maintained by the appellant, hence invocation of extended period is also unsustainable. The department failed to bring out any evidence on suppression or mis-statement; hence making a bald allegation cannot be sustained. Also, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that the mechanism and the procedure adopted by the appellant to pass on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sufficient number of Indica cars are not lifted. In other words, the question raised before the Tribunal was whether cross-model utilisation of discounts are admissible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The findings recorded at para 6.5 are herein reproduced below: "6.5 When we apply the ratio of the above judgments to the facts of the present case, as detailed in Paragraph 5.15 above, it can be easily seen that the so-called "special discount" offered by the appellant does not conform to any of the requirements of a trade discount. That is, it is not known at or prior to the removal of the goods; it is not in accordance with any established trade practice; it is not uniform within the same class of buyers; it is purely arbitrary; it is a compensation for the services rendered by the dealers on behalf of the manufacturer, masqueraded as a discount; it is not passed on to the end-customers; and it is not passed on as a price reduction of the goods to which it pertains to. Thus the so called special discount claimed to have been passed on by the appellant to the dealers is not a trade discount at all so as to be eligible for exclusion from the assessable value of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
