2013 (9) TMI 542 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - reduction of discount from the value - Discounts not shown in the invoices - cash discount quarterly and annual trade discount depending upon the actual performance of their buyers - Held that - Procedure has not been strictly followed but it was in the knowledge of the Department that quantity and turnover discount was being passed on by the assessee - Only on the ground that the procedure was strictly not followed it will not be appropriate to disallow the quantity and turnover discount which the party was otherwise entitled as per law Decided in favor of Assessee Extended period of limitation Held that - Pattern of sale and allowing of discount to their customers was duly intimated by the appellants to the Department and it was in the knowledge of Department that quantity and turnover discount was being passed on by the assessee - Suppression of the facts cannot be alleged in this case and accordingly the extended period of limitation will not be applicable in the case Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against imposition of penalty
- Time limitation for demand

Analysis:
1. Challenge against imposition of penalty:
The appeal was filed by M/s Havells Industries Ltd. against order-in-original No.28/2005, challenging the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appellants were observed to be listing prices on invoices without specifying the percentage of trade discounts allowed. The Department contended that certain discounts claimed by the appellants were not admissible as they were not shown on the invoices. A duty amount was demanded from the appellants, along with interest and penalties. The appellants did not contest the demand on merit but argued that the entire demand was time-barred as the Department was aware of the discount practices. The Commissioner's findings acknowledged that the appellants had informed the Department about the discounts provided to customers, leading to the conclusion that the demand was hit by the time limitation.

2. Time limitation for demand:
The Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked by the Commissioner due to the lack of disclosure of discounts in the invoices by the appellants. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's findings indicated that the appellants had duly intimated the Department about the discounts provided to customers, and the Department was aware of the quantity and turnover discounts being passed on by the assessee. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the suppression of facts could not be alleged, and the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside on grounds of limitation, and the appeals were allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely disclosure of relevant information to tax authorities and the impact it can have on the applicability of the extended period for raising demands. The case emphasizes the need for transparency in business transactions and the significance of following proper procedures to avoid disputes related to taxation and penalties.