9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The respondents have three divisions manufacturing watches, jewellery and clocks & bracelets. During 1996-97, they did not include "performance incentive" in the assessable value of the goods sold to their dealers. The original authority included the same in the assessable value and demanded differential duty on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year, the quantities of goods lifted by the dealers were ascertained and, on that basis "performance incentive" was given to the extent of 1% to 2% on the sale price. The exact percentage of this incentive was determined on the basis of the following parameters:- 1. Maintenance of inventory level 2. Promotional spending 3. Territory development 4. Target sales achievement 5. Maintenance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds supplied by the assessee to such dealers, different amounts of duty will be payable on identical quantities of goods sold to the dealers which, according to ld. SDR, is not permitted by law. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Tribunal's decision in Auto Lamps Limited v. CCE, New Delhi [1987 (29) E.L.T. 889 (T)]. We have heard ld. Counsel for the respondents also. 3. The respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a valid argument, inasmuch as, in the nature of the above transaction, two dealers lifting identical quantities of goods from the assessee in a given financial year would not necessarily receive identical incentive, which depends on parameters unconnected with the quantity or value of the goods. The assessee has claimed the above incentive to be trade discount and accordingly they have claimed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
