2015 (4) TMI 243 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Provisional Assessment Quantity Discount Cash Discount Earlier department disallowed abatements towards cash discount, quantity discount etc which resulted in demand of differential duty - Validity of Tribunal s order - Held that - The grievance of the Revenue is that in the present order of the Tribunal, the verification before the original authority is not qualified as has been done in the previous order. On a reading of both orders passed by the Tribunal, there appears to be some justification in the grievance of the Revenue. It is clear from the record that the remand order in the present case does not impose conditions as imposed in the earlier order dated 7.5.08. This Court is of the considered view that the order in the present appeal, if it is following the earlier order, should be in consonance with the directions contained in the earlier order with regard to finalisation of provisional assessment, whereby the assessee is bound to furnish documents to support the claim in the finalisation of provisional assessment. However, such is not the case in the present order, which does not qualify any verification before the original authority. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the order of the Tribunal, impugned in the present appeal, should be in consonance with previous judgment 2008 (5) TMI 634 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's order allowing assessee's appeal.
2. Inconsistency in the Tribunal's order regarding finalization of provisional assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, Revenue, challenged the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal. The substantial questions of law framed included whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside lower authorities' orders without considering amended provisions of the Central Excise Act and new provision of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, during the hearing, it was clarified that the appeal was focused on the inconsistency in the Tribunal's order rather than the legal issues raised. The case involved the manufacturing of lubricating oils and allied preparations, with disputes arising over the valuation rules and differential demands raised due to disallowance of certain discounts and taxes.

2. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the case for fresh finalization of provisional assessments based on the assessee's preparedness to provide actual figures for claiming deductions. In the present case, concerning the calendar year 2007, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the original authority. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had deviated from the normal procedure without valid reasons and set aside the lower authorities' orders as legally and factually incorrect. The Tribunal directed the original authority to verify the correctness of the assessments done by the assessee.

3. The Revenue's grievance was that the present order did not specify the verification process before the original authority as in the previous order. The Court agreed with the Revenue's contention, emphasizing that the present order should align with the earlier order's directions regarding finalization of provisional assessment. As a result, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter back to the original authority in line with the earlier order.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the original authority for proper verification and finalization of provisional assessments. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.