2004 (1) TMI 470 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
- Consideration of credit notes issued by SAIL for rectifying overpricing
- Accounting principle regarding deduction of rebates in cost calculation
- Justification of duty demand calculation by authorities
- Consideration of future incentive amount in duty calculation

Analysis:

Challenge to Commissioner's Order:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, dated 21-4-2003. The demand in question pertained to the period 1997-98, with a special audit leading to a show cause notice for a differential duty amount. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,84,899 along with penalties and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order.

Consideration of Credit Notes:
The main contention in the appeal revolved around the authorities' refusal to consider credit notes issued by SAIL to rectify overpricing of goods. The appellant argued that the Cost Auditor failed to deduct the rebate granted by SAIL while calculating the actual landed cost, citing an accounting standard on valuation of inventories. The appellant provided all necessary details to the Department, but the authorities did not take the rebate into account, leading to an incorrect duty demand calculation.

Accounting Principle and Cost Calculation:
The appellant emphasized that the accounting principle dictates the deduction of rebates like the one granted by SAIL in determining the cost of purchase. The Cost Auditor's failure to consider this rebate resulted in an inflated duty demand, which the appellant contested as erroneous.

Justification of Duty Demand Calculation:
During the hearing, the Departmental Representative could not justify the authorities' stance on not considering the credit notes issued by SAIL. The Tribunal found that the rebate given by SAIL should have been deducted from the assessable value, leading to the conclusion that no part of the demand would stand valid.

Future Incentive Amount Consideration:
While there was a mention of duty demand on a future incentive amount, the Tribunal noted that this issue was not specifically addressed in the appeal. The original authority's observation regarding the incentive amount to be received from the State Government was not factored into the duty calculation, further supporting the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order in question, emphasizing the necessity of considering credit notes and rebates in cost calculations to arrive at the accurate duty demand, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant.