2018 (7) TMI 1949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and a further penalty of Rs. 2 crore under rule 25. The demand has been confirmed for the period from November 2003 to March 2008. 2. The issue relates to the valuation of chassis of commercial vehicles cleared by the appellant to body builders. The Commissioner by the impugned order has confirmed the demand on the ground that the deduction of the discount from the Ex-Factory Dealer Net Price is not admissible for arriving at the value of the chassis cleared to the body builder. The Commissioner has further held that since the discount is not passed on to the body builders, the valuation of the goods cannot be on the basis of comparable price. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the impugned order has demanded duty on the amount of discounts claimed as deduction in the price charged to the independent buyers. It was therefore, the submission of the appellant, that the demand is legally untenable and was liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the valuation under Section 4(1)(b) read with rule 7 of Rule 8 cannot be adopted in the instant case. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the contention of the department that since the discount was not passed on to the body builder, the deduction of the same will not be allowed, cannot be accepted in view of the judgment in the case of Havells India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Delhi 2017 (357) ELT 407 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces of the chassis to the body builders. 7. In our considered view, once the sale price of the chassis to independent buyers (net of discount) was available and satisfied all the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the same price can be adopted for valuing the chassis cleared to the body builders. The Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB) has held that when sale price to independent customer is available, the same price can be adopted for valuation of the goods stock transferred. 8. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions has held that once comparable price of the similar goods to unrelat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "8. transaction value has The normal 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 authority is clearly erroneous. The benefit of deduction of all types of discounts from the value will be available as long as the price and the discoun....