TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment within the stipulated time. All the same deduction of the cash discount was claimed while making payment of duty in all cases. Similarly, appellants claimed coin discount on the ground that the value of the coin kept inside each consignment was required to be deducted to determine the assessable value of the goods. The Central Excise authorities issued show cause notice holding that the deductions claimed by the appellants in respect of cash discount and coin discount were not eligible deductions from sale price and that these amounts should also form part of the value of the goods for the purpose of payment of duty. Demand was confirmed by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide his adjudication Order No. 21/2002. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction from the sale price in order to determine the correct assessable value of the goods. That order is reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 621. Thus, the issue between the parties remains settled by an earlier order of this Tribunal. It has also been stated during the hearing that no appeal has been filed against the said order. 4. The learned SDR has, however, pointed out that our earlier order related to a period prior to the substitution of the Section 4 of Central Excise Act (Valuation Provisions) with effect from 1-7-2000. It is the learned SDR's contention that the criterion under the substituted section is transaction value in each case. He has, therefore, contended that a cash discount, which is not given in a particular transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. He has pointed out that cash discount represented the cost of financing the sale beyond the time of removal of the goods. He has been pointed out that wherever there is delay in recovery of the sale price, the bills covering those sales got discounted and that cash discount is like the bill discounting commission. Learned Counsel has submitted that, excise being a levy on the manufacture of goods, the measure for valuation cannot go beyond the sale price at the time of removal of the goods and that financing cost being entirely towards delay in payment by the buyer, it has no relation to the real value or price of the goods at the time of removal of the goods. The learned Counsel submitted that this is clear from the fact that the defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.)] that duty of excise is a tax on the manufacture and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. It is the learned Counsel's submission that financing being a separate aspect, from sale, financing cost cannot form part of the assessable value. 6. We find no warrant under the substituted Section 4 and the Rules made thereunder also, for taking a different view on the issues raised in appeal than taken in our earlier order dated 10-1-2003. The measure for valuation under the old Section as well as the new Section is the price of the goods. The statutory measure for value also continues to be the price of the goods at the time of their removal. Cash discount is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
