TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant) and the second dated 25.09.2017 (rejecting two further appeals filed by the Appellant). Since the Appellant is common to all five appeals and the core issue in each is identical, namely, the disallowance of quantity discount and price support/price difference discounts while finalizing provisional assessments, we find it expedient to dispose of all five appeals by this common order. The period under consideration in all the appeals is from January, 2012 to March, 2013. 2. The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Asbestos Cement Corrugated Sheets (hereinafter referred to as 'ACC Sheets'), which are excisable goods within the meaning of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The cleared goods are dispatched from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon finalizing the provisional assessments vide separate Orders-in-Original, disallowed the deductions claimed on account of quantity discount and price support/price difference discounts, holding that such discounts did not satisfy the conditions for deductibility from the assessable value. 7. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance, the Appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of three of these appeals vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2015. The remaining two Appeals were rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 25.09.2017, without granting any relief to the Appellant. The Appellant is therefore before us by way of these five appeals. 8. The learned Counsel appearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and breakage claim and quantitative discount. The appellant has claimed deduction only on account of price support and quantitative discount. However, the Adjudicating Authority while finalizing the assessment has in his order taken the amount claimed to be inclusive of sales incentive and breakage claim. The Adjudicating Authority has also concluded that the appellant have not claimed deduction as per their discount policy. The appellant wishes to reiterate that it has given discount as per its policy and any other discount that has been given to the customers has not been claimed in arriving at the assessable value. Moreover, the discount has been passed on to the consumers by way of credit notes. The observation of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any independent conclusion on the merits. A blanket statement that no reason exists to interfere, without any engagement with the Appellant's submissions, is precisely what the courts have characterized as a non-speaking order. Such an order cannot withstand legal scrutiny. 13. It is a fundamental requirement of adjudicatory fairness and statutory duty that a quasi-judicial authority, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, must independently assess the matter before it and record its own findings and not merely adopt the view of the authority below. Failing to do so renders the appellate exercise hollow and deprives the appellant of the very purpose for which the appeal mechanism exists. 14. We are also deeply concerned by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of its own appeal. This principle, sometimes referred to by the maxim reformation pious, serves as an essential safeguard of procedural fairness. A party should not be penalized for exercising its statutory right to challenge an order. Permitting an appellate authority to convert the Appellant's appeal into an instrument for enlarging the revenue's claim would fundamentally undermine the right of appeal. 17. The requirement that a quasi-judicial authority pass a reasoned order is not a mere formality, it is part and parcel of the principle natural justice and the supervisory jurisdiction of superior courts. An order without reasons is an order without a legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d failure to pass reasoned orders and cannot be sustained. We are in agreement with prayer made by learned Counsel to remand these appeals to the learned Commissioner for a decision afresh. Whatever deductions are allowed in the Orders-in-Original shall remain undisturbed. 21. Since the issue involved in all the appeals before us are common, therefore without discussing any facts etc of another appeal against the impugned order dated 25.9.2017 and without going into their merits, we are setting aside the said impugned order also, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to the extent the same is under challenge and remanding all these appeals to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law....