Excise valuation follows the agreed price at removal, with pre-clearance cash discount excluded and related factual issues remanded.

Under the amended excise valuation scheme, the agreed price at the time and place of removal remained the controlling basis, and a cash discount known under the sale terms before clearance had to be excluded from assessable value even if not deducted at invoice stage. The earlier authorities on trade and prompt-payment discounts continued to apply, while the sales tax incentive precedent was distinguishable because it involved amounts not actually paid to the State. Questions concerning defective goods, volume discount and sales tax required factual reconsideration and were remanded for fresh adjudication by the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash discount was deductible in determining the value of excisable goods under amended Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the issues relating to defective goods, volume discount and sales tax required re-adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether cash discount was deductible in determining the value of excisable goods under amended Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amended valuation scheme continued to require determination of value at the time and place of removal. The expression "transaction value" had to be read with the sale arrangement existing at clearance, and the agreed price for goods formed the basis of valuation. Cash discount, being known at or prior to removal and forming part of the contractual sale terms, did not lose its character because it was not actually deducted at the invoice stage. The earlier authorities on trade discounts and prompt-payment discounts remained applicable, while the sales-tax incentive decision was distinguishable because it dealt with amounts not actually paid to the State and not with the price component at removal.

Conclusion: Cash discount was deductible and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the issues relating to defective goods, volume discount and sales tax required re-adjudication.

Analysis: On these questions, the findings required factual reconsideration by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. The dispute as to whether new goods had been cleared in place of defective returned goods, and the exact amount of volume discount and sales tax actually passed on or paid, could not be finally determined in the appeal on the existing material. A remand was therefore appropriate, and both parties were left free to urge all points relevant to those issues.

Conclusion: These issues were remanded for re-adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the cash-discount question, while the remaining valuation issues were sent back for fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, the agreed price at the time of removal remains the controlling basis, and a cash discount known under the sale terms before clearance must be excluded from the assessable value even under the amended transaction-value regime.

---