2002 (10) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctive areas for sale of the products of M/s. Raymond Limited. M/s. Raymond Limited had a dispute with the excise department on the deductibility of certain expenses from the price to arrive at the assessable value. The expenses were claimed to be post-manufacturing expenses and included commission paid to agents. The order of the jurisdictional officer disallowing these deductions was challenged before the Bombay High Court. The High Court in disposing of Writ Petition No. 352/1983 [1992 (57) E.L.T. 396 (Bom.)] dealt with various claims made by both sides and on the issue of commission it observed as follows : "(iii) Commission to Agents : The 3rd item on account of which abatement has been claimed is commission to agents. The said c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the scope of a "dealer" but are reflective of the performance of a "commission agent". On citing case law that the commission paid to the commission agent did not stand on the same footing as a commission paid to a dealer, the differential duty on disallowing the commission was sought to be recovered, as also consequently the deemed credit availed. 4. Before the jurisdictional Commissioner the assessees' claim that the deduction presently claimed was the same as was earlier claimed and accepted by the Court. The Commissioner discussed a number of judgments holding that the commission paid to agents was not deductible. He also held that the facts before him were different from those which were before the High Court earlier. In this a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... specified period and it is not clear from the appellant Commissioner's grounds of appeal as to whether the facts have changed in the mean time and whether that changed facts are applicable or not to the period in question. The appellant has not categorically stated how the Apex Court and High Court of Mumbai has been supplied with wrong facts by the respondent." 6. We observe that in the present proceedings also it is not demonstrated how wrong claims were made by the assessees before the Court. If some wrong claims were made it was and is possible for the department, even now, to agitate the matter before the respective Courts. 7. On the observation that the conditions were similar it is our prima facie view that the assessees .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X