9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 443 - AT - CustomsRejection of request of provisional assessment - Respondent was entitled to deduction of discounts known at the time of clearance of goods from the depot but quantified later on - HELD THAT - The Tribunal placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS BOMBAY TYRES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 1983 (11) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT and GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VERSUS MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. 1995 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that at the time of clearance of goods, since there is no quantification of demand, provisional assessment needs to be resorted to. The two decision of the Tribunal, on which reliance has been placed by learned authorized representative appearing for the department, would not be applicable in the present case as they do not deal with discounts which though known at the time of clearance of the goods cannot be quantified at that stage and are quantified later. The appeal filed by the department deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of request for provisional assessment for the financial year 2017-18. Analysis: The case involves an appeal filed by the Department against the rejection of the request for provisional assessment for the financial year 2017-18 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres, tubes, and flaps, claimed various discounts on the sale of goods from depots to dealers, which could not be quantified at the time of clearance from the factory. The respondent sought provisional assessment due to the nature of these discounts, as they could only be quantified at a later stage. The Tribunal considered the issue in light of previous decisions and a Board Circular, emphasizing that discounts known at the time of clearance but quantified later are permissible and should be deducted from the transaction value for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of provisional assessment when discounts cannot be quantified at the time of clearance, in line with the Board's Circular. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court decisions and reiterated that discounts known at the time of clearance but quantified later should be deducted from the transaction value. The rejection of the request for provisional assessment was deemed incorrect and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order rejecting the request for provisional assessment. The Tribunal's decision favored the respondent, upholding both issues raised in the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the correctness of paying excise duty on a provisional basis when discounts cannot be quantified at the time of clearance. The Department's appeals were rejected based on the Tribunal's findings in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the Department's appeal in the present case should be dismissed, as it was covered by a previous decision involving the same respondent and similar issues regarding provisional assessment and quantification of discounts. In contrast, the decisions cited by the Department's authorized representative were deemed inapplicable to the present case as they did not address discounts that could not be quantified at the time of clearance. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent was based on the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of allowing deductions for discounts quantified after clearance. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal's findings and the relevant legal principles regarding provisional assessment and quantification of discounts.
|
