2017 (11) TMI 1380 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Orders Remand for Fresh Assessment in Excise Duty Valuation Case

M/s. Castrol India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I

The Appellate Tribunal directed a remand for fresh decision on the finalization of provisional assessment in a case concerning the valuation of ... Valuation - lubricating oil cleared by the appellant and sold through depot - equated discount - Held that: - Admittedly, the discounts as well as abatement on sales tax can be given only based on actual figures supported by invoice, Chartered Accountant’s certificate and other documents. This much has been asserted by the appellant also - Regarding non-submission on earlier occasion, the appellant pleaded that he same is due to non-receipt of suitable advice - it is fit and proper for the original authority to examine these documents which are in any case relating to the relevant period only - matter on remand. Rejection of request for provisional assessment - rejection on the ground that earlier provisional assessment allowed ended in finalisation with the rejection claim of the appellant for the discounts claimed - Held that: - for the calendar year 2006 also, the assessments are to be considered provisionally and the assessments can be finalized based on the documents which the appellant promised to submit regarding the discounts and abatement on sales tax - the assessment can be finalized after taking into consideration the documents submitted by the appellant - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Valuation of lubricating oil for excise duty purposes, Provisional assessment based on discounts, Equated discount claim rejection, Requirement of actual evidence for discounts, Remand for fresh decision on finalization of provisional assessmentThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved three appeals concerning the valuation of lubricating oil for excise duty purposes, specifically focusing on the application of discounts in the absence of relevant data. The appellants sought provisional assessment due to the unavailability of current data regarding cash discounts, quantity discounts, and non-recoverable sales tax. The appellants claimed equated discounts based on an average that included clearances from multiple premises, which was rejected by the revenue authority citing the lack of legal provision for such equated discounts. The lower authorities rejected the claim as discounts should be supported by actual evidence. The consultant for the appellant admitted the need for actual evidence to support discounts and abatement due to sales tax. The appellant claimed to possess relevant data like invoices and chartered accountant's certificates to establish their discount claims accurately.The Appellate Tribunal noted that discounts and sales tax abatement should be based on actual figures supported by invoices and other documents. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's possession of such documents and directed the original authority to examine them for appropriate valuation. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide all supporting evidence for their discount claims. In one specific appeal, the rejection of provisional assessment for the calendar year 2006 was challenged. The lower authorities had rejected the request based on the finalization of an earlier provisional assessment that ended with the rejection of discount claims. The tribunal ruled that assessments for the calendar year 2006 should also be considered provisionally, pending the submission of documents by the appellant regarding discounts and sales tax abatement. Consequently, all appeals were allowed for remand to the original authority for finalization of assessments based on the documents submitted by the appellant.