SWASTIK FRAGRANCES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned Order -in -Original, Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad upheld the Order -in -Original passed by the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting the claim of the appellants for deduction of certain amounts from the assessable value. Aggrieved, this Appeal has been filed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are : Appellants are manufacturers of 'Pan Masala' falling under Chapter sub -heading 2106.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the relevant period their clearances were assessed on provisional basis under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 pending verification and submission of proof of actual expenses incurred in respect of deductions claimed on account of freight, Luxury Tax, Insurance, Cash discount, Turn over discount, Regional discount, Central Sales Tax, etc. The appellants by their letter dated 5 -4 -1997 informed Jurisdictional Range Superintendent that excisable goods manufactured by them are cleared after payment of duty to their duty -paid godown and from there the excisable goods are despatched to their dealers and distributors located all over the country. By their further letter dated 9 -11 -1997 they informed that they had not claimed any deduction on account of freight, insurance and octroi from the factory gate to duty -paid godown but the said deductions had been claimed from duty -paid godown to destinations of dealers/independent buyers. On a scrutiny of the relevant records the Department found that the appellants had availed of certain deductions from their duty -cum -price to arrive at the assessable value. On the basis of the scrutiny of the documents, a duty demand of Rs. 74,67,671.80 was raised by the Show Cause Notice for the period 1 -4 -1994 to 14 -11 -1995.

(3.) THE matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who by his order considered the claim of the appellants for various deductions. He allowed deductions on certain items but did not allow appellant's claim for deductions on account of their 'incentive scheme'. The Asstt. Commissipner's order was upheld by the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals) before whom the only question that was canvassed was in relation to deductions on account of 'incentive scheme'.