2020 (4) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - allowability of deductions - main grievance of the revenue against the order of the first appellate authority is that the assessee has not submitted CA certificate along with necessary documents to prove that they have passed on the discounts claimed to the buyers - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the discounts on the basis of the invoices, credit notes and equalised octroi/ entry taxes - On identical issue, this bench had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for earlier periods in respect of the same respondents in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX MEDCHAL GST VERSUS ACE TYRES LTD., UNIT II, EXEL RUBBER LTD. 2019 (11) TMI 377 - CESTAT HYDERABAD . This decision has, so far not been overturned or set aside by any higher judicial forum. Therefore, the decision is binding on this bench. The miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed as infructuous and the impugned orders are upheld - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Misfiled application for withdrawal of appeal by Revenue.
2. Disallowance of deductions claimed by respondents.
3. Burden of proof on assessee to show discounts passed on to buyers.
4. Relevance of CA certificate and documentary evidence.
5. Interpretation of different forms of discounts.
6. Consistency with earlier decisions on similar issues.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a situation where a Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Revenue seeking not to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn due to an inadvertent error. However, it was found that no application for withdrawal of the appeal had been filed by the department, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application as infructuous.

2. The case involves the disallowance of deductions claimed by the respondents regarding discounts given to buyers. The original authority disallowed the deductions, leading to appeals filed by the respondents. The first appellate authority allowed the deductions, which was challenged by the Revenue in the present appeals.

3. The Revenue argued that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that the discounts were actually passed on to the buyers. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly allowed the deductions without sufficient documentary support, emphasizing the importance of the CA certificate and underlying evidence.

4. The judgment delves into the significance of the CA certificate and documentary evidence in proving the passing on of discounts to buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered various forms of discounts, including those shown in invoices, given via credit notes, and related to equalized octroi/entry taxes, to determine the admissibility of deductions.

5. The interpretation of different forms of discounts was crucial in this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed discounts based on invoices, credit notes, and equalized octroi/entry taxes. The judgment referenced previous decisions that upheld the admissibility of discounts passed on through credit notes, emphasizing the relevance of documentary evidence.

6. The judgment highlighted the consistency with earlier decisions on similar issues involving the same respondents. It was noted that a previous decision by the bench had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for earlier periods, which had not been overturned or set aside by any higher judicial forum, making the decision binding on the current bench.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, upheld the impugned orders allowing deductions claimed by the respondents, and rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue based on the analysis of burden of proof, relevance of documentary evidence, and consistency with previous decisions.

← Previous Next →