AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4,01,36,880/- for the period July 2000 to March 2009. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Kesoram Rayon ( herein after referred as the appellant) are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn and Cellophane falling under Chapter Headings 5403.32 and 3920.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Substantial quantity of goods manufactured at the factory are cleared to the depots located at multiple places of the Appellant, after payment of excise duty. Further, the finished excisable goods are sold to the customers from the depots itself. The selling price at the depots keeps on fluctuating depending upon the demand and supply position and other market related factors. Thus, the market price a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herry and Mumbai. These discounts were passed on as per the Circulars issued by the Appellant. Since the rates of the said discount were fully known to the buyers and were being allowed to them at the concerned depot, the deduction was being claimed by the Appellant in terms of the Circular, while dispatching the goods to the respective depots. The said discount was allowed by disclosing the same in the depot invoice or by issuing credit notes periodically. • Turnover discount-this discount was allowed for Cellophane (only on Plain Transparent Reams) as well as Rayon Yarn (particular depots mentioned in the circular and at specific rates).This discount was passed on to the buyers periodically by issuance of credit notes to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to March 2004 and the remaining 30 notices were issued for the subsequent months. The Show Cause Notices were issued on the basis of the allegation that the discounts claimed for the goods stock transferred to the depot were not eligible for deduction and further proposed to demand duty amounting to Rs. 4,01,36,880/- on the discounts claimed as deduction. 2.4. The Ld. Commissioner, Kolkata vide a common Order-in-Original dated 10.09.2014, confirmed the entire demand along with interest and penalty, proposed in the 31 SCNs. The demand was confirmed on the following grounds: • Denial of discounts claimed as deduction and passed on to the buyers on the ground that the Appellant at the time of assessment did not reckon to "norma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yers by way of cash discount, Turn over discount, special discount, etc. as per their sales policy. The appellant had extended such discounts vide cheques which established that the duty against which the refund applications had been filed had been paid by the appellant and had not been passed on to any other person under Rule 12B read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has also been recorded that the refund claim applications had been submitted within the stipulated time period. Further, I note that the concerned Range Officers had certified the discount amounts that had been passed to the buyers vide their verification reports. ... 6. It is seen that the Adjudicating Authority had proceeded on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. Therefore, the final assessment order had attained finality. In such circumstances, it is not open to the revenue to issue SCN to the Appellant for the same period for which assessments have been finalized. Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the demands confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed for setting aside the same. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that the Appellant cleared the goods provisionally upon payment of excise duty during the relevant period and all the provisional assessments have been made final vide issuing of finalisation orders. The said final assessments have been accepted by the dep....