TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value. The goods were cleared under excise invoices by claiming above deductions from the price and duty was discharged on the assessable value, accordingly. However, commercial invoices were also issued reflecting the selling price without showing deductions. At the end of the financial year, on the basis of actual discounts passed on to the customers, the assessable value was re-determined and differential duty had been paid. 2.1 On a visit by the range officers to the factory premises of the Appellant, it was noticed that the discounts claimed by the Appellant had not been entirely passed on to the customers, involving duty of Rs. 27,79,839/- for the period prior to 01.07.2000 and Rs. 3,00,058/- for the period after 01.07.2000; similarly , deductions claimed by the Appellant on account of special packing and freight charges involving duty of Rs. 7,04,116.78, Rs. 20,45,559/-, respectively were not admissible to them, but claimed wrongly. Consequently, a demand notice was issued to the first Appellant on 04.11.2003 for recovery of the duty short paid along with proposal for penalty and personal penalty on other two appellants. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further contention that even after 01.07.2000, the admissibility of cash discount was held to be on the same terms and conditions as was earlier by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi-iii -2015 (323) ELT227 (SC). 3.1. Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted that through their annual business policy circular they had disclosed the nature and percentage of eligible discounts to their customers, therefore, minor variations in the percentage of discounts disclosed in the declared Price Lists, and the business policy, which was carried to meet market exigencies, cannot be considered as non-disclosure of the percentage and nature of discounts to the customers before the removal of the goods. Further, the Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that necessary certificates from the customers has been obtained by the appellant now to show that their business policy of passing various discounts from the price was made known to all the customers prior to removal of goods. Also, he has produced the respective party ledgers in support of their claim. He submits that they may be given a fair chance to produce these evidences before the adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC). 3.5. Also, assailing the penalty imposed , they have submitted that since assessable value was re-determined on the basis of the principle of law laid down in the judgements of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the issue is of interpretation is law, therefore, no penalty is imposable. Further, the learned Chartered Accountant submitted that even though the penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been imposed, but no option to pay 25% of the penalty amount has been extended to them. Further, he submits that the personal penalty on the employees of the Appellant company is unwarranted inasmuch as their role in alleged payment of duty on account of inadmissibility of discount claimed has not been discussed while imposing personal penalty under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 / under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 4. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that there is no dispute of the fact that the Appellant had availed various discounts including cash discount. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The issue to be considered is: whether the Appellants are eligible to cash discount, and deductions on account of special packing charges and freight charges from the sale price, during the relevant period, in the determination of assessable value and discharge of duty. It is not in dispute that the Appellant had claimed various discounts like Turnover & quantity discount, cash discount, year ending discount, special discount, & deductions on account of freight and special packing from the normal sale price at the time of clearance of goods by filing necessary price declaration under Rule 173C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the relevant period. On the basis of the actual discounts passed on and the expenditure incurred, the appellant-assessee re-determined the assessable value and discharged the duty on the differential value at the end of the each financial year. 6. The learned Commissioner while disallowing the cash discount, divided the period into two parts i.e. period prior to 01.07.2000 and after 01.07.2000 observing that the position of law was different during the said period. Now, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolato....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the customers acknowledging the receipt of their business policy circulars where the percentage and nature of cash discount had been disclosed. 7.1 We find force in the contention of the Appellant. Also, now they have procured letters/ communication from various customers accepting knowledge about the percentage and nature of cash discount through business policy circular; these evidences need to be scrutinized by the learned Adjudicating Authority. Hence, for verification of these evidences, the issue needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. 8. With regard to the deduction of expenditure on account of special packing charges, the learned Commissioner rejected the said deduction, as the Appellant could not substantiate their claim that the manufactured goods were cleared after undertaking special packing at the behest of the customers. The evidences in the form of purchase orders produced by the Appellant before Ld. Commissioner, on analysis found to be not genuine being issued subsequently, hence not accepted. The learned Chartered Accountant could not place any further evidence to rebut the finding of the learned Commissioner. On the other hand, the learned Chartered....