Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Kolkata-Iv

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.14/KOL-IV/2013 dated-08/5/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-IV), Kolkata) For approval and signature of: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE

Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Sri P. Banerjee, Advocate FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri A. Roy, Supdt., A.R. FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 17/09/2015

ORDER NO : FO/A/75525/2015 Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.26.20 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Advocate Shri J.P. Khaitan for the applicant submits that during the period 1996-2000, the applicant had cleared their finished goods to their depots and from there it was sold after allowing various discounts from the selling price to the customers. He submits that the discounts that were passed on from the depot price to the customers, include quantity discount/ contract discount, turn over discount, special discount etc.. These discounts were initially not allowed to be deducted from the price on the ground that the same were not shown on the invoice but later passed on to the customers by issuance of credit notes. Similarly, certain expenses viz. freight, octroi duty, Turn Over Tax etc. were also not allowed to be deducted from the depot price. The Ld. Sr. Advocate further submits that in the remand proceeding, after analysing the eligibility of these discounts and expenses, in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and Tribunal, the adjudicating authority has allowed deduction of these discounts & expenses from the depot price and confirmed an amount of Rs.99,098/- due to calculation mistake. The Ld. Advocate contended that on an appeal filed by the Revenue against the said Order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has simply allowed the Appeal, without discussing any of the issues on which the demand was dropped by the adjudicating authority. He submits that during the course of adjudication, they have deposited an amount of Rs.2,53,076/- and prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) for consideration afresh.

3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has fairly accepted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has not recorded reasons in allowing the Revenue's appeal. He has no objection in remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal).

4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

5. We find that dispute relates to the period 1996-2000 and the issued involved is determination of the assessable value of manufactured goods sold from the depots. The grievance of the Appellant was certain discounts/expenses were not allowed to be deducted from the depot price in arriving at the assessable value. This Tribunal has earlier remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on the basis of evidences on record. Consequently, after discussing in detail each and every element of discounts/expenses, applying the principle of law laid down in this regard, dropped substantial amount of demand after re-determining the assessable value of the goods sold from the depots. However, we are constrained to note that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting the Revenue's appeal and setting aside the order-in-original, failed to record any reason in support of his conclusion. Needless to mention that an order without reason is bad in law and cannot be sustained. In the result, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and as agreed by both sides remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to record reasons in passing the order. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant. M,A. (E.H.) and S.P. also stand disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 29/9/15 Sd/- 29/9/15 (H.K. THAKUR) (D.M. MISRA) Technical Member Judicial Member

k.b/-

Excise Appeal No. : E/70938/2013

4