9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 167 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - undervaluation - Across-the-Board Rebate (ABR) - admissibility of discounts - adjustment of list price by giving different rebates / discounts referred to as Movement Plan Rebate (MPR) - period from May 2008 to April 2012 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It can be seen from the wordings as used in Section 4(1) that the assessable value is the transaction value at which goods are sold by an assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, whereas transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the goods. In the instant case, as the goods are not sold from the factory gate and the depot / BSO is the actual place of sale, the assessable value would therefore be required to be determined in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) ibid., read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, which caters to sale of goods from a depot to non-related buyers and price being the sole consideration for sale - the BSOs allow discounts to final customers beyond the price circulars that are duly known to the appellant at the time of removal of goods from the factory (conveyed through the internal communications of the CMO). Such discounts are allowable as deduction from the price of the goods for the purpose of determination of duty due thereon. In terms of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, any discount given at the time of clearance of goods ought to be allowed for assessment of goods transferred to the BSO when the same is passed on to the final customers - with reference to an Across the Board Rebate (equivalent to MPR), this Tribunal in the appellant s own case STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR 2005 (11) TMI 10 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI had held The law with regard to the valuation of the goods is that the goods should be assessed at the net price, i.e. minus the discount, to Central Excise duty. In the present case, it is clear that the valuation adopted by the appellant was only more than the net realisation at the depot stage. The rebate as was known by way of MPR and uniformly passed on would be required to be taken note of for determination of the assessable value. There is a complete similarity in the factual matrix of the appellant s own case, with the present issue at hand inasmuch as the CMO determined the ABRs (in the present case, MPRs) and indicated the same to the plant as well as depots. The goods were sold from the depots after allowing such ABRs (in the present case, MPRs) indicated on the face of the invoice. Also, the Chartered Accountant s certificate furnished both in the said case and the present case referred to supra, establishes that the cumulative value of the ABRs (in the present case, MPRs) allowed from the depot exceeded the ABRs (or MPRs) as claimed by the appellant. The Hon ble Apex Court s decision in the case of M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI III 2015 (8) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT has also upheld the admissibility of discounts that were passed on to the buyers and were known at the time of clearance of goods as eligible deduction for the purpose of determination of the assessable value. There are no sustenance in the order of the Ld. Commissioner under challenge herein - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contravention of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 2. Admissibility of Movement Plan Rebate (MPR) as a trade discount. 3. Invocation of extended period of limitation u/s 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Validity of the adjudication order confirming the demand of duty. Summary: Issue 1: Alleged Contravention of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 The appellants were accused of contravening Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudication order confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,51,62,600/- u/s 11A(10) of the Act along with interest u/s 11AA and an equal penalty u/s 11AC. Issue 2: Admissibility of Movement Plan Rebate (MPR) as a Trade Discount The appellant, a manufacturer of iron and steel articles, contended that the MPR is a uniformly allowed trade discount, scientifically and commercially determined by a high-powered committee. The MPR is shown separately on invoices and is not refundable by buyers. The Department argued that such MPRs were arbitrary and resulted in undervaluation. The Tribunal referred to Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, concluding that discounts known at the time of clearance and passed on to final customers are allowable deductions for determining the assessable value. Issue 3: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation u/s 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation, arguing that there was no intent to evade duty and that the rebates were not disclosed in ER-1 returns. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the appellant in a similar case involving "Across-the-Board Rebate" (ABR), making the demand for the period from May 2008 to April 2012 time-barred. Issue 4: Validity of the Adjudication Order Confirming the Demand of Duty The adjudication order confirmed the demand for six reasons, including the inability to determine the final customers at the time of transfer to BSOs and the non-compliance with CBIC Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. The Tribunal found that the MPRs were indeed trade discounts passed on to final customers and supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal cited previous judgments, including Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commr. and Purolator India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, upholding the admissibility of such discounts. Conclusion For the reasons stated and the settled position of law, the Tribunal set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
|
