Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(144)ELT477(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,75,32,250/- in one case and Rs. 67,70,933/- in the other case and penalty of an equal amount Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Id. Counsel submits that the applicants manufactured various types of motor vehicles and paid duty on ad valorem basis. Sometimes in March, 1998, the applicants decided to offer additional amount to the dealers as special rebate of Rs. 1,000/- to 2,000/- per vehicle on different models which was allowed by the applicants. This amount was allowed from the sales price of the vehicle. This amount was credited to the dealer's account. The applicants decided to accept this amount as deposit from the dealers and credited the same to the dealer's reserve fund on which interest at a rate of 10% was to be paid and the amount was to be refunded when the agreement with the applicants came to an end. He submits that this amount has been claimed as a discount which has been denied by the authorities below and penalty has been imposed.
2. Arguing the case Id. Counsel submits that it is a well settled legal position that trade discounts are permissible as deductions under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that this rebate is known to the buyer prior to the removal of the goods and the same is not refunded back to the manufacturer and therefore, this amount is an admissible deduction and is entitled for abatement in terms of the above section. It was also submitted by the Id. Counsel that it is well settled in law that a trade discount is a permissible deduction even if the same is not passed on or shown in the invoice of the goods but the same is passed on in the form of credit notes subsequently. It was also submitted by him that in terms of CBEC, Circular dt. 3-6-2000 this type of discounts are permissible deductions. He referred to a number of judgments including the judgment in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329. He, therefore, prayed that since the amount given as rebate is a permissible deduction, therefore, no question of its being a part of price leviable to duty does arise. He, therefore, prayed that pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived.
3. Ms. K.A. Mishra, Id. DR opposes the request and submits that it is not a discount as it is retained by the applicant, therefore, the amount was in the form of deposit on which the applicant was paying interest. She submitted that since the amount is not permissible deduction, therefore, the authorities below rightly included it in the assessable value for purpose of levy of duty. She, therefore, prays that the applicant may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we note that the applicant has not been able to make out a case of total waiver. Having regard to the facts of the case, we direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. one-crore on or before 26-8-2002. On deposit of this amount deposit of the balance amount of penalty and duty shall be dispensed with and recovery thereof shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
5. Failure to comply with the above directions shall lead to vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeal.
6. The case should be listed for final hearing on 3-9-2002 if the com pliance is reported.