2020 (4) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ticulars E/52691/2018 E/52692/2018 1 Period of dispute July 2015 to March, 2016 2016-17 2 Duty Demand dropped Rs. 23,74,580/- Rs. 30,25,722/- Rs. 33,26,989/- Not Applicable (Request for provisional assessment rejected) 3 Order-in-Original Nos. 23/2015-16-CE (prov. Ass) dated 26.02.2016 24/2015-16-CE (Prov. Ass) dated 31.03.2016 01/206-17-CE (prov. Ass) dated 29.06.2016 02/2016-17-CE (Prov. Ass) dated 30.06.2016 4 Order-in-Appeal No. 415-417 (CRM)CE/JDR/2018 dated 18.05.2018 458 (CRM)CE/JDR/2018 dated 18.05.2018 5. Review Order 25/2018 dated 16.08.2018 26/2018 dated 16.08.2018 2. The facts relevant for the purpose are that the respondents herein are engaged in manufacture o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of clearance. The Respondent, in compliance of these orders, though paid the differential duty alongwith interest, but being aggrieved, appeals were preferred by the appellant against three of the said orders, which were allowed vide the common Order-in-Original as above. 4. There is one difference in appeal No.52692 that the request of the assessee - respondent about provisional assessment for the year 2016 -17 itself was rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2006. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order No.458 dated 18.05.2018 has accepted the assessee's appeal holding the same to be well within the law as well as within the Department's clarification. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(S.C.) and has also impressed upon the Boards' Circular No.354/81/2000-TRU dated 30th June, 2000. 8. After hearing the parties, perusing the entire records and the relevant case laws, we observe and hold as follows:- The issues involved herein are: (i) Whether, on finalization of provisional assessment, the Respondent was entitled to deduction of discounts known at the time of clearance of goods from the depot but quantified later on? (Appeal No.52691) (ii) Whether request for provisional assessment has rightly been rejected. (Appeal No. 52692) 9. As pointed out, we observe that the issue is no more res-integra, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International (Supra). Subseq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contention of the department that the deduction of trade discount is not permissible at all. The only contention of the department is that since the turnover discount is not given at the time of sale and is quantified much later its deduction is not permissible. This plea, in our view, is not correct. 10. The said decision has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Wearwell Tyres and Tubes Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2010 (257) ELT 126 (Tri.-Del.). The issue stands otherwise clarified from Board's own Circular which reads as follows:- "The question of including the amount of discount in the transaction value does not arise. Discount of any type or description given on any normal price payable for any....