(1.) The issues involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Purolator India Ltd., relate to determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and whether the Appellants have cleared new excisable goods in place of defective goods received back in their factory.
(2.) Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Filter Elements, Inserts and Cartridges and components thereof; that the excisable goods manufactured by them are either sold from their two factories to various vehicle manufacturers or stock transferred to depot where from the goods are stock transferred to various C and F Agents; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed demand of duty and imposed penalty, by invoking extended period of limitation holding that the deduction on account of volume discount, cash discount and sales tax from the value is not admissible and that they had removed fresh excisable goods without payment of duty in place of defective goods received from their customers.
(3.) The learned Advocate submitted that Commissioner has held in the impugned Order that deduction of cash discount is not available in respect of sales where cash discount is not actually being passed on; that discount towards cash discount is available even after amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act with effect from 1 -7 -2000 notwithstanding the fact that each and every customer has availed of cash discount or not; that the element of cash discount clearly indicates that the price charged without the cash discount is not a cash price but is a credit price; that thus the difference between cash price and credit price representing interest reimbursement for the Credit period is not to be included in the assessable value. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad v. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd., 2004 (167) E.L.T. 401 (T) = 2004 (60) R.L.T. 726 (CESTAT) and Kiran Mouldings Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai -IV, Final Order Nos. 124 -126/2004 -NB (A), dated 3 -3 -2004.