9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowing the same - the demand of duty and interest confirmed and penalties imposed upon the appellant are unsustainable. Whether the discounts were known to the Department as well as to the buyers before removal of finished goods? - HELD THAT:- It is recorded by the Commissioner himself in the order that the discount and the nature of discounts had been duly disclosed by the appellant to all concerned including the department and the price declarations containing the respective percentage of such discounts, have also been duly filed. It is also seen that abatements have been claimed by the appellant in respect of each of the discounts - issue decided in favor of appellant. Whether such discounts were actually passed on to customer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a manufacturer of Plywood and Block Boards classifiable under chapter no.4480.90 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2001 was issued alleging wrong availment of various discounts. The Commissioner Central Excise by an Adjudication Order dated 21.08.2002, confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalties. Assessee filed appeal before the Hon ble Tribunal bearing No. EDM 171/2005 Tribunal disposed of the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for de-novo adjudication. In the impugned order dated 31.10.2008, in the de-novo proceedings, the Commissioner of Central Excise has again confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 20,64,840.38 and imposed an equal amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Section 4 of the Act effective from July 1, 2000. It is now settled law that if the same discounts available are made known to all the buyers at or before clearance of the goods from the factory, is deductable from the assessable value across the board irrespective of whether each customer avails of the said discount or not. In this respect, reliance is placed upon the following decisions : - i) The Purolator India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (323) ELT 227 (SC), para 18 ii) Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1993 (65) ELT 186 (Bom) para 10 This decision of the Bombay High Court stood affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and sold therefrom. d) Part of the demand issued beyond the prescribed period of one year is barred by limitation. By letters dated November 10, 1997 and April 29, 1998 addressed to the assessee, the Range Superintendent had confirmed that provisional assessments were finalised after scrutiny of depot sales bills with invoices and challans. Differential duties were duly paid by the appellant thereafter and the assessments were treated as final. The Commissioner has ignored this settled legal position. e) It is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5. The Ld. A.R. appearing for the Department reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. It is submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills generated at the Banganagar branch office, which were submitted by the appellant. The demand raised in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order related to those invoices/bills of the Banganagar Unit of the appellant. The fact that the said invoices/bills pertained to goods of the Banganagar Unit of the appellant, is apparent from the said bills/invoices The word Bill marked on the bills/invoices clearly indicate that the goods in question belonged to Banganagar Unit of the appellant. The Commissioner was therefore not justified to hold that the bills/invoices did not reflect goods which originated from Banganagar Unit of the appellant, there being no evidence to the contrary. 9. From the said inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
