2006 (12) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Inclusion of interest paid by the buyer to their bankers under the 'Bill Marketing Scheme' in the assessable value of goods.
2. Whether the interest amounts need to be considered in the assessable value of the goods sold.
3. Applicability of circulars issued by the Board regarding assessable value.
4. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments.
5. Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the inclusion of interest paid by the buyer to their bankers under the 'Bill Marketing Scheme' in the assessable value of goods supplied by the appellants. The appellants had a financial arrangement with a common buyer, where the buyer's bank received interest equal to the discount allowed by the appellants. The Commissioner included these interest amounts in the assessable value, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalties.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the transaction and noted that only the discounted price was received by the appellants, without any financial flow back influencing the assessable value. The discounted price was accepted as the transaction value of the goods. The question arose whether the interest paid by the buyer's bankers needed inclusion in the assessable value. Circulars by the Board clarified that the net price after cash discount should be accepted as the assessable value.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on whether the interest amounts should be part of the assessable value. The appellant's counsel argued for limitation against the duty demands, except in specific cases. The Tribunal referred to circulars issued by the Board to support the contention that the discounted price should be the assessable value.

4. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from previous decisions, emphasizing that the appellants were only concerned with prompt payment by the buyer, not the financial arrangement between the buyer and their bank. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision upheld by the Supreme Court, highlighting the distinction in circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a favorable Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner in a similar case.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellants had a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery on merits. Without delving into the limitation issue, the Tribunal granted the waiver and stay as requested, acknowledging the strength of the appellant's case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the inclusion of interest amounts in the assessable value of goods and the considerations based on legal precedents and circulars issued by the Board.

← Previous Next →