2002 (10) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant. Shri J.M. George, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - Both these appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Commissioner, are against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. 2. The assessee's appeal challenges the finding of the Commissioner on the includibility of interest in the assessable value of the goods. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l relates to the element of discount of 1.5%. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover duty of Rs. 13.77 lakhs approximately on the ground that an element of discount of 2.5%, which it found, was being deducted from the sale price, was not permissible because it was upon the buyers maintaining their deposits towards the price. In his order, the Commissioner found that this demand is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e list for every product is identical to the assessable value of the goods. The distributorship agreement mentioned in clause 5 that "The Company will allow discounts by way of margin on Reagent Strips and Kits as follows to the Distributor". The position that emerges is that the amount is not in the nature of discount in the sense of deduction from the sale price in order to arrive at the assessa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X