2018 (2) TMI 1490 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - quantity discount at various rates - It was alleged that appellant has not passed the quantity discount claimed by them completely to the buyers - Held that - ample opportunities were given and the appellant failed to substantiate their claim - It is seen that in the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal they had not raised this issue and they have admitted their liability and therefore, it is not open to them to raise this issue in this proceeding. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand confirmation and penalty imposition for failure to pass quantity discount to buyers; Claim for deduction under Rule 173C for quantity discount; Claim for deduction of Sales Tax and other taxes; Issues raised during remand proceedings including limitation, adjustment of deductions, benefit of cum-duty value, and provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand and penalty imposition due to the failure to pass on quantity discounts to buyers. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Polyester Filament Yarn, Nylon Filament Yarn, etc., had filed a declaration under Rule 173C in April 1998 claiming a deduction for quantity discount. Prior to this, no such declaration was filed, and duty liability was discharged based on assessable value after claiming quantity discounts at various rates. The appellant was alleged to have not fully passed on the claimed quantity discount to buyers, leading to show-cause notices being issued for different periods.

During the proceedings, the appellant raised various issues, including limitation, adjustment of deductions, benefit of cum-duty value, and provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC. The appellant had earlier admitted duty liability on quantity discounts not passed on but sought adjustments for excess duty paid due to lesser deductions claimed on sales tax. However, the appellant failed to provide necessary documents to substantiate their claims despite multiple opportunities given by the Commissioner.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to provide evidence to support their claims for adjustments and excess deductions related to sales tax, turn over tax, and octroi. The appellant's plea regarding less deduction than the actual amount spent was not supported by any documents. Additionally, the appellant's argument that factory gate price should prevail over depot sale price, as well as their claim for cum-duty price, were not entertained as they were not raised in earlier proceedings where the appellant had admitted liability.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, stating that no merit was found in their claims. The appellant's failure to provide necessary documents and their previous admission of liability without raising certain issues earlier led to the dismissal of their appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 11/01/18 by the Tribunal.