9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of cash discount on glazed ceramic tiles. 2. Disallowance of cash discount by the Commissioner. 3. Applicability of extended period of limitation. 4. Imposition of penalty under section 11AC. Analysis: 1. The appellant claimed a 3% cash discount on glazed ceramic tiles for prompt payment within five days from the invoice date. The notice issued in May 1998 proposed disallowance of this discount, alleging that it was passed to customers not entitled to it. The Commissioner found that 40% of buyers availing the discount did not meet the payment condition, deeming the discount impermissible. The appellant argued that the discount was uniformly applicable and known to buyers before goods removal, citing various judgments supporting their claim. 2. The appellant contested the disallowance of the cash discount, challenging the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that the extended period of limitation should not apply. The Commissioner upheld the disallowance, imposed penalties under section 11AC, and confirmed duty payable. The appellant's counsel referenced multiple judgments from high courts and the Supreme Court supporting the appellant's position on the cash discount. 3. The departmental representative argued that the discount should only apply to sales where it was actually availed of, and claiming it for delayed payments constituted discrimination. The High Court's decision in a similar case supported extending the discount to all sales, regardless of individual customer availing. The Tribunal's consistent rulings and Supreme Court confirmations further strengthened the appellant's position. 4. The appellant's discount practice aligned with legal requirements, as highlighted by previous judgments. The Commissioner's mention of a different discount without proper specification did not impact the admissibility of the claimed discount. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the discount was applicable in all cases, rendering the duty demand invalid and eliminating the basis for imposing penalties. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the limitation arguments, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
|
