2015 (5) TMI 978 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Finalization of Provisional assessment - Deduction of trade discounts - Held that - Dispute is only about the quantification of the trade discounts whose deduction is to be allowed. There is no dispute about eligibility of the trade discounts for deduction. The Department s contention is that the quantum of trade discounts whose deduction is permissible must be determined on the basis of the details of each clearance and that the manner in which the Assistant Commissioner has quantified the account is not correct. Since, the dispute is only about quantification, we set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) s order with regard to the quantification of the trade discount and remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for re-determining of the quantum of trade discount based on consignmentwise details. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of octroi deduction and trade discounts in Central Excise duty assessment for Decorative Laminates, pre-laminated particle board/MDF board, and furniture.
2. Appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order finalizing provisional assessment.
3. Appeals filed by both the assessee and the Department to the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding quantification of trade discounts.
5. Dispute over the eligibility and quantification of trade discounts.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the assessment of Central Excise duty for the manufacturing of Decorative Laminates, pre-laminated particle board/MDF board, and furniture. The Assistant Commissioner had passed an order disallowing the deduction of octroi duty but allowing the deduction of trade discounts. The final assessment determined the duty liability of the respondent and appropriated the amount paid earlier. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals against this order.

2. The appeals were taken to the Commissioner (Appeals), where the assessee challenged the disallowance of octroi deduction, and the Department challenged the correctness of the quantification of the deduction on account of trade discounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected both appeals, leading to further appeals by both the respondent and the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal had already decided on the appeal filed by the respondent regarding the deduction of octroi, remanding the matter for re-quantification of the duty liability. However, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the same order was not considered at that time.

4. During the hearing of the Revenue's appeal, the Department argued for a remand to the original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of trade discounts based on consignmentwise details. The respondent defended the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that the quantum of trade discounts had been determined based on verification by the Range staff.

5. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the dispute was only about the quantification of trade discounts, not their eligibility. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding quantification and remanded the matter for re-determining the quantum of trade discounts based on consignmentwise details. The Revenue's appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues involved in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the quantification of trade discounts in the Central Excise duty assessment.