TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng different prices for their different depots and one of the point of dispute was as to whether the price at the respective depots should be adopted as assessable value in respect of the goods sold through those depots or whether the sale price at the nearest depot should be adopted as the assessable value. Another point of dispute is deduction of turnover tax, depot expenses and cash discount. These issues were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24/07/98 by which she held that- (a) depot price for each depot should form the basis for arriving at the assessable value in respect of clearances to that particular depot; (b) deduction of turnover tax and deduction of discount to hospitals and nursing homes is pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Commissioner in his order dated 29/3/05 confined himself only to the confirmation of the duty demands of Rs. 4,26,626/- and Rs. 7,32,141/- totalling Rs. 11,58,767/. The respondent filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 10/11/05 ordered adjustment of the duty demand of Rs. 11,58,767/- against the excess payment of duty of Rs. 86,54,690/-. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The appeal is mainly on the ground that since the assessments during the period of dispute were not provisional and as such Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not applicable, there was no authority for adjustment of the short payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assessee and this order dealt only with the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 11,58,767/-, there was no justification for the Commissioner (Appeals) to order adjustment of the duty demand of Rs. 11,58,767/- against the refund of Rs. 86,54,690/-, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that though there was no formal provisional assessment order during the period of dispute, the assessments have to be treated as provisional, that while finalising the provisional assessment, the excess payment of duty is required to be adjusted against short payment and in this regard the bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent would be eligible for deduction of turnover tax and discount in respect of supplies to hospitals and nursing home; (c) the respondent would not be eligible for deduction of the depot expenses and (d) there would be eligible for deduction of cash discount wherever it has been passed on. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) having decided these issues directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the duty demand for the period of dispute. The duty demand for the period of dispute is covered by 8 separate show cause notices by which duty amounted to Rs. 1,55,11,932/- has been demanded. In pursuance of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29/3/05 confirmed the demand of only Rs.....