2016 (12) TMI 1517 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Cash discounts - scope of ambit - whether the cash discount realized back by the appellants through debit notes is chargeable to central excise duty? - Held that - what has to be seen in order to arrive at the correct value of excisable goods under Section 4 is such value at the time of removal, and this being so under both the old Section and the new Section, cash discount has to be allowed as has been held in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Limited 1983 (11) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - there will be no need to add back the discounts to the assessable value, even if the same are subsequently recovered - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether cash discount realized back by the appellants through debit notes is chargeable to central excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut II, dated 28.10.2010. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing papers, questioned the disallowance of their claim regarding the cash discount realized back through debit notes. The main issue revolved around whether this cash discount should be subject to central excise duty. The transaction value, as defined in the Central Excise Act, was a crucial aspect of consideration in this case. The lower authorities had disallowed the claim, prompting the appellant to file the appeal.

During the proceedings, both parties were heard, and it was noted that the issue had been previously addressed in the assessee's own case for the previous period. The Tribunal had also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in a relevant case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the transaction value under the new Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the assessable value should be the actual price paid by the buyers when no cash discount had been provided to them. The Tribunal rejected the appeal concerning the allowance of deduction on account of cash discount but remanded the matter regarding volume discount, sales tax, and duty liability on returned goods to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication.

The appellant's counsel argued that the amendment in 2000 to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act did not alter the treatment of cash discount from the previous provision. Citing relevant Supreme Court cases, the counsel contended that cash discounts should be allowed in determining the correct value of excisable goods at the time of removal, under both the old and new Sections. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision, settled the issue by concluding that there was no requirement to add back the discounts to the assessable value, even if they were subsequently recovered. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.