TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... showing roughly the break-up of various deductions claimed 34-40 (Paper Book filed by Pearl Drinks Ltd.) 2. 18.1.1995 Letter from Pearl Drinks Ltd. to Suptd. of Central Excise, MOD-I giving clarification regarding determination of assessable value 30-33 (Paper Book filed by Pearl Drinks Ltd.) 3. 16.3.1995 Pricelists filed by M/s Pearl Drinks Ltd. effective from 16.3.1995 in Annexure-II giving sale price and deductions on transportation, container service and other service charges including trade discounts etc. 28-29 (Paper Book filed by Pearly Drinks Ltd.) 4. 30.6.1995 Letter from M/s Pearl Drinks Ltd. to Supdt. of Central Excise, MOD-I enclosing declaration of assessable value in Annexure-II effective from 1.7.1995. 25-27 (Paper Book filed by Pearl Drinks Ltd.) 5. 21.7.1995 Respondent wrote a letter to Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise regarding details of deductions claimed on sale of aerated waters in glass bottles and stated that on account of annualized nature of determining these costs their assessab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Pearl Drinks Ltd. 50-44 13. June 2002 Submissions were made against Revenue Appeal No. E/1345/2002-EX. that there is enough cushion available even if all deductions are disallowed (para 2) 44 (in Pearl Drinks Ltd. cross-objection) 14. 22.7.2002 Honble Tribunal passed Final Order No. 316/2002-A and Misc. Order No. 51/2002-A dismissing the Appeal filed by Commissioner as the Commissioners order has already merged in the Final Order of Honble Tribunal dated 24.1.2002. 15. 6.7.2010 The Honble Supreme Court vide their order allowed the appeal filed by revenue and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law 68-54 16. 21.4.2011 The Honble Tribunal in Final Order No. 360/2011-Ex. allowed the Deptts Appeal setting aside the impugned order and matter is remanded to the Commissioner for passing appropriate order after hearing the parties. 82-70 17. 8.2.2012 The Honble Tribunal passed Misc. Order No. 261-262/2012-Ex.(BR) on Revenues application for extensi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omers 0 (g) Other trade discount 0 (h) Breakage, Burst and Leakage of aerated water (11%) 1,333,990 10,033,582 (iii) It is not necessary to individually decide upon the admissibility of the deductions claimed under various heads ((a) to (h) above) which were disallowed for the reason that the actual expenses in respect of heads which were held to be deductible come to Rs. 95585556/- while the total deductions claimed by them as per the show cause notice (based on the provisional figures) amounted to Rs. 58982962/- (out of which deductions amounting to Rs. 9704384/- only were held to be inadmissible). Ld. Advocate pleaded that if deductions under various heads permitted in the show cause notice only were taken into account and actual figures pertaining to those heads were allowed deductions then there would no demand at all. Indeed it might be a case involving refund. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the contentions contended in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions of ld. Advocate and also of the ld. DR. For the reasons which will become obvious i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not contested by Revenue during hearing) given below supports this view : Transportation Rs. 1994-95 Delivery Vehicle, Running and Maintenance expenses 10,080,953 Vehicle Hire Charges 2,050,998 Vehicle Insurance and vehicle taxes 279,196 Freight and octroi charges 588,313 Service charges including handling 2,400,000 Depreciation of the vehicles 750,376 Establishment cost 13,796,648 Total 29,946,484 Net production for own sale 2,644,696 Transportation cost per case 11.32 RETURNABLE CONTAINER SERVICES Shell repair cost 227,329 Empty exchange charges 1,120,198 Depreciation on containers 23,139,967 Less; profit on sale of containers 3,063,964 Interest on containers 91,100 Breakage, Burst and Leakage 12,127,184 Lease Charges 10,323,507 Total 43,965,321 Net production for own sale 2,644,696 Returnable container services per case 16.62 TRADE DISCOUNTS Contract arrangement 18,923.679 Other trade discounts 2,750,072 Total 21,673,751 Net production for own sale 2,644,696 Trade discount per case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deduction claimed by company in 1994-95 as per SCN 58,982,962 5. Cushion available i.e. Deduction not claimed (3-4) 26,569,012 6. Revenues contention that the assessee did not raise the point earlier that the expenses under various heads furnished were provisional is factually incorrect as we have already recorded that the assessee had clearly stated in its letter that the deductions under various heads were on provisional basis and the actual expenditure can be ascertainable only after finalisation of accounts. 7. Revenue at one stage contended that the assessee should have filed refund claim, if excess duty was paid. However, we notice that it is a case involving determination of assessable value u/s 4 ibid by deducting permissible deductions from the wholesale price and the only issue involved is whether the impugned demand confirmed on the ground that certain deductions were not admissible is sustainable or not. 8. It is a fact that even as per the show cause notice expenses on account of transportation, container services and trade discounts were held to be deductible and ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2012 dated 25.6.2012. The impugned demand was confirmed on the ground that out of the deductions amounting to Rs. 58982962/- claimed by the appellant for the period 1994-1995, deductions amounting to Rs. 9704384/- were not admissible and the demand was computed on the amount held to be inadmissible. But in the wake of the fact that the actual figure of the total expenses under the aforesaid three heads held to be deductible from the wholesale price is Rs. 9558556/- which is far more than the total deductions claimed for the year 1994-1995 (viz. Rs. 58982962/- axiomatically no demand would survive after allowing deduction of the actual expenses relating to the said permissible three heads. Consequently we need not go into the merits of disallowing the expenses incurred under the heads (a) to (h) mentioned earlier for the purpose of deciding whether the impugned demand is sustainable. E/3165/2012 11. Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Original No. 3/D-I/2012 dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi in terms of which he passed the following order: "I drop the demand of Central Excise duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to account the facts/submissions brought to the knowledge by the party at the appropriate time. In the presence of adequate cushion being available as discussed above and also claim for the same by the party, it is viewed that though the relevant issues raised in the show cause notice hold good in view of the evidence brought out in the show cause notice and consequently the resultant demand attributable on this count could be valid, if the evidence pertained to the period covered by show cause notice issued in the instant case. However, the availability of the cushion as discussed above does not warrant recovery of differential duty on such amount. To make the matter more simple, I conclude that the view point of department with regard to inadmissibility of deductions is correct but the inadmissible deductions as discussed above pertain to the period 1994-95. The re-computation thus emerges as under: S. No. Description Amount 1. Total deductions claimed by the party during 1994-95 Rs.9,55,85,556/- 2. Total inadmissible deductions under eight heads pointed out by the Department Rs.1,37,97,580/- 3. 1-2 Rs.8,17,87,976/- 4....