2008 (10) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Provisional Assessment Quantity Discount Cash Discount Earlier department disallowed abatements towards cash discount, quantity discount etc which resulted in demand of differential duty. The demand was contested. In appeal the claim of the assessee was allowed assessee was not possessed of actuals of discounts at the time of clearance of the goods to their depot/consignment agents and hence sought permission of the Department for provisional assessment department denied the provisional assessment held that provisional assessment is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Provisional assessment procedure, disallowance of abatements, appeal against declined provisional assessment for the year 2007.

Analysis:

1. The appellant's manufacturing unit was set up in 1996, following the provisional assessment procedure for goods. The provisional assessments for the years 2004 & 2005 were finalized by the original authority, disallowing abatements leading to a demand for differential duty. The case was contested and eventually remanded to the original authority for finalization after providing relevant particulars and Chartered Accountant's certificates. The final order was accepted by the Revenue as well.

2. For the year 2007, the appellant's request for provisional assessment was declined by the original authority, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The appellant finalized their provisional assessments and paid differential duty in response to the original authority's order. The appellant argued that the application for stay of the impugned order had become irrelevant due to these actions.

3. Upon examination of the case and submissions, the Tribunal found that the Department did not provide valid reasons for deviating from the established provisional assessment procedure in place since 1996. The appellant did not have actuals of discounts at the time of goods clearance to depot/consignment agents, hence seeking permission for provisional assessment. Similar circumstances in the past were noted by the Tribunal in previous final orders. The Tribunal deemed the lower authorities' orders legally and factually incorrect, setting them aside and allowing the appeal. However, the original authority was tasked with verifying the correctness of the assessments done by the assessee.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural history, the issues surrounding provisional assessments, the reasons for the appeal, and the Tribunal's decision based on the established legal principles and factual circumstances presented in the case.