2000 (10) TMI 699 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation for assessment of patent and proprietary medicines, deduction of discounts, assessable value based on wholesale price vs. maximum retail price.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the appellant, a manufacturer of patent and proprietary medicines, appealed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise regarding the valuation for assessment of their goods. The Tribunal held that the assessable value should be determined based on the price at which the distributor sells the goods, with permissible deductions as per law. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for valuation determination.

The manufacturer claimed deductions from the assessable value based on the price at which the distributor sold the goods, including a 10% cash discount and a 10% discount for supplying free goods. The Commissioner accepted the cash discount but rejected the free goods discount claim, citing lack of legal authority. However, the Tribunal had previously confirmed the admissibility of such a discount in Stickwell Indus. v. CCE, Indore. The appellant was deemed entitled to the free goods discount, subject to compliance with discount conditions. The claim for deduction of duty payable from the sale price was also to be accepted in principle.

The Commissioner did not address the appellant's argument that the assessment should be based on the wholesale price rather than the maximum retail price. The Tribunal noted that there was no justification provided for using the retail price and emphasized that the wholesale price is typically used for valuation. Therefore, the Commissioner was directed to accept the wholesale price as the basis for assessment unless a valid reason for not doing so was presented.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's order. The appellant was instructed to provide evidence supporting the claim for the "free goods discount" within a month. The Commissioner was tasked with reviewing the evidence from both parties and issuing a new valuation order in accordance with the Tribunal's observations and the law, ensuring the appellant had the opportunity to respond to any evidence presented by the department.