TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Calicut. 2. The facts in brief are M/s. Hyderabad industries limited the appellant is the manufacturer of asbestos products. The appellant during the impugned period sold goods from factory gate and also from their sales depot at Kerala in respect of stock transferred goods on payment of central excise duty based on the price card fixed by the corporate office, the price card is the rate at which the excisable goods are supplied to the buyer of goods. As per the appellant they have a discount policy wherein cash discount of Rs. 2/- was allowed in case of payments made by the dealers /stockist are within the stipulated period or before delivery of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....13,000/- 4 33/2014-CE Dt: 1-5-2014 1-7-2013 to 31-12-2013 Rs.2,17,146/- Rs.21,000/- 5 47/2014-CE dt: 26-11-2024 1-1-2014 to 30-6-2014 Rs.2,79,790/- Rs.27,000/- 6 46/2015-CE dt: 8-7-2015 1-7-2014 to 31-12-2014 Rs.1,15,333/- Rs.11,000/- 3. The adjudicating authority referring to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a)&(b) read with Explanation 2 to Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 held that additional discount given only to customers who made advanced payments and transaction value is acceptable only when the price is not influenced by other consideration and in the present case additional discount given to customer who makes advances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss to the extent of cash discount has part of the contract of sale and the same is in accordance with the valuation rules and is eligible for eligible reduction; the passing of cash discounts to the buyer of goods is not in dispute; the price charged and paid by the buyer of the goods he is not in dispute in the absence of any evidence that the advance influenced the price, inclusion of the same in the assessable value is not in consonance with the valuation rules; the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Purolator India limited Vs. CCE, Delhi- III reported in 2015(323) ELT 227 (SC ) wherein it is held that:- "18. However, "transaction value" as defined in sub-clause (3)(d) of Section 4 has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation order to the effect that the advances received have influenced the fixation of price of the goods; the authorities failed to appreciate that the price remains the same whether amounts received in advance or not that is it is not the price that is reduced but what is reduced is the value due to discount given as cash discount; even though the appellant described it as advance payment it is a cash discount; it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that cash discounts are admissible for deduction from the price of goods and sole consideration for sale; the appellant before the adjudicating authority had relied on the following case laws; i) Techmseh Products India Pvt., Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-IV 2006 (193) ELT 87 (Tri-Bang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ledge of the department is not going to help to say that proviso to section 11A is not invocable; in Mehta and Co the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cause of action is date of knowledge; the learned adjudicating authority ought to have seen that when the issue is on interpretation of valuation provisions and no positive act of separation is established and the demands for the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015 have been set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), extended period of limitation is not invocable; the appellant relied of the following case laws; i) Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Delhi-III-(2024) 18 CENTAX 370 (Tri-Chan) and ii) Ramco Cements Limited Vs. CCE, Trichy-(2024) 22 CENTAX 227 (Tri-Mad); when out of the 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... buyers of the goods who had paid advances and the discounts are as per the already disclosed rates which are available for all the buyers who pay the amounts in advance or who pay the sale consideration within the stipulated periods after the delivery of the goods. Further, we find that Revenue has not brought in any evidence to the effect that the advances received by the appellant had influenced the price of the goods supplied to such buyers except that they were allowed certain prescribed cash discounts. We also find that the discount policy of the appellant is known to the buyers and they are not discounts which are given only a certain category of buyers. Therefore we find that there is no reason for invoking Rule 6 of Central Excise ....