TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts placed before him. 2. The facts of the case are as under: "1. The respondents are manufacturers of tyres under the brand name "CEAT" on job work basis and clear such goods manufactured to the sales office/depots of C & F agents of 'CEAT' who are the principal manufacturers. The goods were assessed to duty on value determined under Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules 2000. Since the price of the goods were not known to the respondent at the time of clearance of goods on account of various discounts offered by the principal manufacturer to buyers they sought provisional assessment of the goods which was granted by the original authority. Consequent to finalisation of the accounts of the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal manufacturer. Further, the respondents have not produced necessary documents to establish that the discounts have been actually passed on to the buyer. The case laws relied by the Commissioner are not applicable to the facts of the case and the view taken by the Commissioner that in the present case the respondent need not obtain another expert opinion contrary to the certificate produced by them is erroneous. The Commissioner wrongly observed that the original authority had not done verification of records to conclude that the discounts passed on were only in the nature of post manufacturing expenses. The conclusion of the original authority is that the discounts passed on through credit notes cannot be said to be actually passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter going through such documents has reached a conclusion that the discounts are eligible and there is sufficient evidence to establish that the discounts have been passed on to the buyer. The only dispute thereafter which remains is with regard to the quantification of the discounts. For this, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Cost Accountant certificate to determine the quantity of the discounts on average/equalisation basis. In para 11 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 07.09.2017 the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed this issue and held that there is no bar on allowing deduction on equalisation formula. To take this view he has relied upon the decision in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Vs CCE, Pondichery reported in [20....