2018 (7) TMI 1188 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of discounts in assessable value - Whether the discount allowed by the appellants/manufacturer to its authorized dealers in respect of Demo Cars whether the same have been rightly disallowed by the Courts below and added back in the assessable value? - Held that - There is no element of advertisement in the discount given by the appellant company in clearance of the Demo Cars - further, the SCN are against the concept of transaction value under Section 4 of the Act. The discount has been given by the appellant in terms of the business policy, which was widely known as Trade Discount and they had also made adequate disclosures to the Revenue. The Trade Discount under dispute was known to all, prior to removal of the goods, and the same have also been given at the time of clearance. Accordingly, the same is permissible under Section 4 of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether discounts on "Demo Cars" given by manufacturer to authorized dealers were rightly disallowed and added back in assessable value.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over discounts given by the manufacturer to authorized dealers on "Demo Cars." The Show Cause Notice alleged that the manufacturer evaded Central Excise duty by not including the discount amount in the assessable value of the cars. The manufacturer argued that the discounts were part of a business policy known as "Trade Discount" and were disclosed to the Revenue. The manufacturer contended that the discounts were permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found that there was no element of advertisement in the discounts and that the Trade Discount was given as per the business policy and known to all parties involved prior to the clearance of the goods. The Tribunal held that the discounts were allowable under Section 4 of the Act, citing relevant case law to support its decision.

The Tribunal noted that the case was similar to precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. and Purolator India Ltd. v. CCE. It emphasized that the concept of transaction value under Section 4 of the Act had to be considered at the time of clearance of goods and the price agreed upon between the parties. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to refund the deposits made during the investigation with interest within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer, stating that the discounts given on "Demo Cars" were permissible under the law and business policy, and there was no element of evasion of Central Excise duty. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, relevant legal provisions, and established case law, providing relief to the appellant in the case.