9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ochi and Head Office at Haryana. In one of its factories situated at Pune it is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Tubes and Flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed declaration effective from 1st June, 1997 under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) declaring two sets of assessable value in respect of the abovementioned Tubes and Flaps. One set of assessable value was for dealers dealing exclusively in Apollo brand tyres and flaps operating under Apollo Tyres World Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ATW Scheme) and second set of assessable value was for other dealers who sell tubes and flaps not only of Apollo Tyres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Declaration is a 3% ATW Discount. (3) The fact of grant of this discount is not known to the dealers at the time of removal of the goods. (4) Though, this ATW discount was deducted while determining the assessable value at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to the District Sales Offices (DSO)/Regional Distribution Centres (RDC), the said discount was not passed on in the invoices when the goods were sold therefrom to the dealers. Thus it is alleged in the show cause notice that an amount of Rs. 47,04,851.67 was due as excise duty from the appellant on the inadmissible discount amounting to Rs. 1,58,64,956 for the period from June 1997 to June 1998. 4.Detailed reply was given by the appellant against the allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which would be ATW discount on tubes and flaps sold during June 1997 to June 1998, only an amount of Rs. 4,03,338 was not passed on to the dealers. Duty demand on the above discount, namely, discount not passed on to the dealers was therefore confirmed. The duty amount worked out to Rs. 1,02,455. 5.The adjudicating authority proceeded to find that the appellant ought to have themselves paid duty on the amount of discount not passed on to the dealers. Instead they suppressed from the Department the fact they are deducting discounts which were not passed on to their dealer. Thus the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act would apply to the assessee's case as also Sections 11AB and 11AC. It was on this basis the demand of interest and impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide and there was no reason to hold that the appellant is guilty of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty so as to attract liability to pay interest and penalty. 7.On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative would contend that there is no merit in the claim of the appellant that it had acted bona fide. It is pointed out that the enquiry by the Directorate of Anti Evasion had started in March 1998 and the first payment towards duty on the discount amount not passed on to the dealers was made only on 22-8-1998. This, according to the learned D.R. would show that the appellant wanted to suppress the fact that they had not passed on the discount to the dealers to the extent of Rs. 4,03,338 with specific intention to ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
