9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent sell their products on FOR destination basis all over the country through their depots and branches at a fixed cum-duty selling price. However, they give various discounts to their customers like prompt payment cash discount, additional trade discount, trade incentive, turnover discounts, etc., to their dealers. These discounts are calculated and paid to the dealers/customers by credit notes issued to their dealers/consignment agents. As a result of this practice, the respondent were paying duty at the factory gate on a higher assessable value while clearing the goods to their depots/consignment agent's premises, as at that time, the quantum of permissible deduction was not known. For this reason, the respondent vide their letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total amount of duty charged and shown in the invoices and, as such, since the respondent have received the full amount of invoice value of the goods including the duty on that value at the time of clearances they are not entitled to any deductions. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, vide order-in-appeal dated 30th April, 2013 rejected the Revenue's appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Though this matter today was listed for hearing of the stay application, after hearing this appeal for sometime, the Bench of the view that the appeal heard for final disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of both the sides, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 17-12-12 had only finalized the assessments by permitting deduction of certain discounts and certain taxes and, as such, in this order no refund payment has been ordered to the respondent, that it is this order, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the deduction of turnover discount even if determined after the clearance is admissible in view of judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries v. CCE reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 693 (Tri.-Mum.), CCE v. Visakha Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (248) E.L.T. 865 (Tri.-Bang.) and CCE v. Goetze (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd. (supra), CCE v. Texmo Industries reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.) and also in the case of CCE v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). In fact the Apex Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) has held that deduction of turnover discount is admissible even if such discounts are not given in the invoice, but are subsequently paid to the buyers by issuing credit notes for the equivalent amounts. Thus, the impugned order in so far as upholding the deductions of these discounts is concerned is correct. Neither in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner nor in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), any refund arising out of finalization of the provisional assessment has been sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
