Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether prompt payment discount agreed with dealers and allowed through credit notes was deductible from assessable value and whether refund of duty paid on such discount could be denied for want of prior intimation to the department or provisional assessment, subject to the test of unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The discount scheme was part of the dealer agreement and the additional discount was known at the time of clearance, though quantified later on receipt of payment. A commercial discount that is known at or before clearance and is actually passed on does not form part of the assessable value. The departmental instruction regarding provisional assessment was held to be directory and its non-compliance, by itself, could not disentitle the assessee when the nature of discount was established. The cited authorities on post-clearance price reduction were distinguished because they dealt with a different situation where price was reduced after removal rather than a pre-existing discount scheme. The earlier decisions recognising prompt payment discount as excludible from value were followed.
Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and the Revenue's challenge failed. The assessee was entitled to refund of duty relatable to the prompt payment discount, subject to the test of unjust enrichment.