2016 (9) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule to the Central Excise Tariff act. On a request made by the appellant, Revenue ordered provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The ground on which the provisional assessment was ordered was that the appellant was claiming various types of discounts such as cash discount, quarterly and annual turnover discount etc. Though the fact of extending these discounts were known at the time of removal of the excisable goods, the actual quantification of these discounts were known only after achieving the sales target. The provisional assessment was ordered vide the order dated 13/04/2006 and this was for the period 1st of April 2006 to 31 of March 2007. The appellant submitted the necessary details and requested for f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dustries vs. CCE -2016-TIOL-567-CESTAT-MUM. * Glennmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. CCE -2011 (272) ELT 385 (Tri. Mum.) * Tecumesh Products India (P) Ltd. vs. CCE -2006 (193) ELT 87 (Tri. Bang.) * CCE vs. Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co. Ltd. -2014 (308) ELT 172 (Tri. Del.) * Insecticides India Ltd. vs. CCE-2015 (317) ELT 767 (Tri. Del.) * CCE vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.- 2011 (263) ELT 477 (Tri. Del.) * Wearwell Tyres & Tubes Ind. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE-2010 (257) ELT 126 (Tri. Del.) * CCE vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. -2005 (186) ELT 229 (Tri. Del.) * Purolator India Ltd. vs. CCE  2015 (323) ELT 227 (SC) 5. The learned DR appearing for the revenue brought to our notice the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment." 8. The normal transaction value has been defined as the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has interpreted these provisions to mean that the appellants were required to pay duty on the goods cleared from their factory to their depot on normal transaction value referred above. Since at the time of initial clearance of goods from their depot, the appellants had not given any discount to their buyers, the deduction on account of various discounts is not applicable. The stand taken by the 1st appellate author....