9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves/discount since 2008 and no objection has been raised by the department. The issue raised only after the judgment of the Tribunal in Tata Motors Ltd. s case by Central Excise Revenue Audit and the demand has been computed on the basis of available records; show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding differential duty proposing denial of said deduction from the price. Hence, there are no suppression or mis-declaration or mis-statement of facts on the part of the appellant. In absence of any suppression or mis-declaration of the facts, larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order is modified and appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation only. - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) S/Shri Ravi Raghavan and Roshan, Advocates for the Appellant. Shri H. Jayathirtha, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.04/2018-PR Commr. dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Multi Utility V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance to the dealers i.e., prior to the removal of the vehicles from the factory. The discounts schemes were of various nature viz., wholesale incentives (Target linked, Early Bird, Non-target linked), retail sale incentives (Target linked, Non-target linked) and documents based incentives - Loyalty Scheme, Exchange claims, etc. Based on the eligibility conditions and the dealer s performance during the month, entitlement incentives earned by each dealer is computed in the beginning of the following month. The said computation is consolidated by the marketing team of the appellant and communicated to the Finance Team for disbursement. The incentives to the dealer in a staggered manner in respect of the vehicles purchased by them in the following month have been passed through invoices. He has submitted that the Comptroller Auditor of General conducted an audit on their records and through letter dated 8.2.2016 raised an objection that practice of passing discounts on motors vehicles to dealers and claiming deduction of the same from the transaction value is covered against the appellant by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Toyota Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune: 2015 (328) ELT 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular month. Once the incentive has been earned by the dealers, the same is awarded by the appellant in the form of discount. Hence, cross-utilisation of discounts results into undervaluation is incorrect and unsustainable. 3.5 Further, he has submitted that the incentive schemes floated by the appellant are driven factors and would even relate to the high rate of duty related to cars such as Fortuner, Innova and Corolla and are not specifically limited to other cars. 3.6 Referring to the PR sheets submitted during the course of adjudication, the learned advocate submits that a portion of the total incentive unlocked by the dealers by satisfying various conditions of the incentive schemes floated during relevant month also relates to vehicles Fortuner, Innova and Corolla. It is immaterial whether the discount schemes were floated for small cars, once the discount has been given on the face of the invoice. It satisfies the criteria by passing on to the buyers made known prior to the date of removal of goods, hence eligible deductions irrespective of any relation or not to the earlier schemes floated by the appellant. 3.7 Further, he has submitted that extended period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of this Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra). Also, he has submitted that appellant has suppressed the correct assessable value, hence, extended period of limitation is invocable and penalty warranted. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issued involved in the present appeal for consideration is whether the incentive of discounts declared for small/mid segment cars be allowed to luxury model cars i.e., Fortuner, Innova and Corolla attracting higher rate of duty. In other words, whether cross model utilisation of incentives/discounts are admissible. 6.1 The appellant vehemently argued that since the price has been reduced by the incentive discount passed on the face of the invoice irrespective of the applicability of discount to any model of cars, the same are allowable from the price. The department s contention on the other hand is that cross model utilisation of discounts are not admissible in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra). Therefore, it is relevant to discuss the facts and findings of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra). The facts in that case are briefly that the Tata Motos Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand for differential duty is upheld, the liability to pay interest thereon is automatic and consequential. Therefore, the demand for interest on the differential duty liability is also upheld. In the said case, this Tribunal held that discounts passed on by the appellant to the dealers does not satisfy the requirement of a trade discount to qualify for deduction in as much as if the discount is declared for a particular model of car, the end-user is not receiving the discount and the discount is purely arbitrary; hence, not available as an abatement from the price of the goods. 7. We do not find any reason to differ from the principle laid down in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra). No contrary judgment on the subject was placed before us. Therefore, the cross-model utilisation of discount are inadmissible to the appellant. On the issue of invoking larger period of limitation, we find that the appellant has been following the said mechanism of passing incentives/discount since 2008 and no objection has been raised by the department. The issue raised only after the judgment of the Tribunal in Tata Motors Ltd. s case by Central Excise Revenue Audit and the demand has been co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
