2018 (4) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amesh Nair Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Insulated wares of plastics for household and tablewares and vacuum flasks falling under heading 39.24 and 96.17 of the CETA. They had filed declarations under Annexure - II with the department from time to time claiming deductions @14% on account of discount from depot sale price They were issued show cause ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. 17.01.96 a demand was made for the period April 94 to October' 95 by invoking larger period of limitation on the ground that the discount on average rate is not permissible. The demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal who remanded the matter for reconsideration of the submissions made by the Appellant. The adjudicating authority vide ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it that during pendency of provisional assessment no show cause notice could have been issued to them. On merits he submits that the discount was given at the time of sale as per pre determined discount structure and hence cannot be disallowed. They have been giving Trade discount to all customers at the time of sale from Depot and are based on pre-fixed and pre-determined discount structure which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is then the deduction whether it is 14% or 9,5% is ascertained at the time of final sale from the depot based on which final assessment has been carried out and differential duty paid. 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing for the revenue supports the findings of the impugned order.   4. We have perused the facts of the case and heard both the sides. We find that there is....