2017 (11) TMI 1095 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - discounts termed as Standard Discounts and Special Discounts as also Cash Discounts and Sales Linked Discounts - provisional assessment - Held that - even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority however, in respect of the submission by the applicant that during the relevant period the duty actually paid by them was ₹ 15,76,79,154/- and not ₹ 13,87,96,831/-, he has not come to any conclusion but referred the matter to the original authority to determine the same - despite the direction of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Department has not entertained the request of the appellants to look into the computational error and simply responded by asking for recovery of adjudged amount. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the impugned order in original and rejecting the appeal in toto appears to be erroneous - matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned order on provisional assessment and duty computation; Discrepancies in assessable value and duty payable; Appeal against Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order; Request for reconciliation of figures; Computational discrepancies requiring remand.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the impugned order related to the provisional assessment of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. They cleared goods on MRP basis and payment of duty on assessable value. The issue revolved around discounts offered by the appellants to their authorized dealers, including Standard Discounts, Special Discounts, Cash Discounts, and Sales Linked Discounts. The sales linked discounts were calculated annually and extended to dealers through credit notes. The appellants sought provisional assessments due to the discounts being computed yearly. The final assessable value was determined at the end of 2005-2006, resulting in a differential duty payment and interest. However, discrepancies arose during finalization, leading to a demand for additional duty and interest by the adjudicating authority.

The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, directing the appellants to report any errors in duty payment to the Assistant Commissioner. Despite the appellants' efforts to reconcile figures, the Department insisted on the additional duty payment. Acknowledging computational discrepancies, the Ld. AR agreed that the matter required remand for further examination.

Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order but failed to address the discrepancy in the duty amount actually paid by the appellants. The Department disregarded the appellants' request for error review, insisting on the recovery of the adjudged amount. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision erroneous, setting it aside and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination. The authority was instructed to carefully assess the computational errors, review submitted documents, and statutory records, ensuring the appellants receive a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for remand to address the computational discrepancies and provide a fair hearing to the appellants for a fresh adjudication.