TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder OIA No.245/2006-CE dt. 31/03/2006 and are filed by assessee and Department respectively. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Cotton Crepe Bandages (CCB, for short) falling under Central Excise Tariff No.30 04 90. As per the practice, the assessee clears the goods i.e. CCB on stock transfer basis to the central warehousing depot situated in different places. From there, the goods are sold to dealers. The dispute covers the following issues:- i. The assessee was drawing samples for the testing purpose. These samples were retained as controlled samples. The Department was of the view that this activity should be considered as captive consumption and duty demand was confirmed by the original authority. However the Commissioner(Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ep Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the assessee as well as Shri Jagdish, learned AR for the Revenue. 4. The assessee were drawing samples for testing quality of the product and were retaining such samples within the factory as control samples. The original authority had confirmed the demand for the reason that drawing of samples should be considered as captive consumption. But the demands have been set aside at the level of Commissioner (Appeals) by taking the view that the samples are retained within the factory and hence not liable to duty inasmuch as the same have not been cleared from the factory. Such view also finds confirmation in the Tribunal s decisions in the following two cases:- i. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perused these documents and are of the view that this scheme is evidently in the form of quantity discounts. Discounts in any form has been allowed as valid deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Such view has also been confirmed by various courts from time-to-time. In particular in the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III [2016(337) ELT 276 (Tri. Mumbai)], a similar issue was examined and decided in favour of the assessee on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Purolator India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015(323) ELT 227 (SC)]. The Tribunal concluded relying on the decision of the Apex Court, as follows:- "From the above definitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion value has only to be at the time of removal, that is, the time of clearance of the goods from the appellant s factory or depot as the case may be. The expression actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold only means that whatever is agreed to as the price for the goods forms the basis of value, whether such price has been paid, has been paid in part, or has not been paid at all. The basis of transaction value is therefore the agreed contractual price. Further, the expression when sold is not meant to indicate the time at which such goods are sold, but is meant to indicate that goods are the subject matter of an agreement of sale. Once this becomes clear, what the learned counsel for the assessee has argued must necessarily be ac....