9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 321 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - quantity discount - includibility - whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the quantity discount offered to dealers/distributors? - Held that - This Tribunal has analysed the very same issue in appellant s own case Pharm Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli 2017 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT CHENNAI and held the issue in favor of Revenue and held that there is no scope for deducting the value of M.R.P goods which are supplied along with identical goods in the same packing as quantity discount - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the quantity discount offered to dealers/distributors.
Analysis: The Tribunal previously analyzed the issue in the appellant's case and ruled in favor of the Revenue, citing the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Ahmedabad. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision in Section 4A to allow deduction for quantity discounts. The assessable value must be deemed equal to the declared retail price, with only abatements specified by the Central Government being permissible. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case involving free supply of goods, stating that the situation in the current case differs. The Supreme Court's decision in CCE Bangalore vs. Himalaya Drug Company was cited, highlighting that the M.R.P. is the sole consideration for determining the assessable value under Section 4A. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were not provided free of cost to the end customer at the retail stage, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the cited judgments. In light of the above discussions and following the precedents set by the Larger Bench and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that there is no scope for deducting the value of M.R.P. goods supplied as quantity discounts. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
|
