2017 (4) TMI 637 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Allows Cash Discount Deduction, Emphasizes Transaction Value

M/s Century Pulp & Paper Versus CCE, Meerut

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order disallowing the cash discount deduction subject to central excise duty. ... Assessable value - deduction towards cash discount on excise duty payable realized back through debit notes - Held that:- the issue is squarely covered by the assessee-Appellants own case for the previous period in Excise Appeal No.629/2008 dated 15.6.2016 where the Tribunal has also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India vs. C.C.E., Delhi III, [2015 (8) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that “transaction value” as defined in sub-clause (3)(d) of Section 4 has to be read along with the expression “for delivery at the time and place of removal”. It is clear, therefore, that what is paramount is that the value of the excisable goods even on the basis of “transaction value” has only to be at the time of removal, that is, the time of clearance of the goods from the appellant’s factory or depot as the case may be. There will be no need to add back the discounts to the assessable value, even if the same are subsequently recovered. Similar views were taken by the Tribunal in the assessee-Appellants’ own case in Excise Appeal No.400 of 2011 dated 20.12.2016 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee. Issues:1. Whether cash discount realized back by the assessee through debit notes is chargeable to central excise duty.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II. The main issue revolved around whether the cash discount realized back by the assessee through debit notes is subject to central excise duty. The transaction value definition under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was crucial in determining the chargeability of the cash discount. The lower authorities had disallowed the claim, leading to the appeal by the assessee.During the proceedings, both the counsel for the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue presented their arguments. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the assessee where the issue was similar. The Tribunal also relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Purolator India vs. C.C.E., Delhi III, 2015, which emphasized the determination of the transaction value for excisable goods. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the actual price paid or payable for the goods when sold, as per the new Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.The Tribunal further discussed the evolution of valuation provisions under the Central Excise Act and emphasized the significance of the transaction value under the new Section 4. Citing relevant case laws and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the assessable value should be based on the actual price paid by the customers, especially in cases where no cash discount was given. The Tribunal rejected the appeal concerning the cash discount deduction but remanded the matter for re-adjudication on other aspects. The imposition of penalties was left open for the Adjudicating Authority to decide.In light of the settled legal position following the Supreme Court's decision and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of the transaction value and the correct valuation of excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.