9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by the appellants. The authorities below have already considered the additional amount received to be the cum-duty price and accordingly, have reduced the demand from Rs. 65,152.48 (Rupees sixty-five thousand one hundred and fifty-two and paise forty-eight). 2. The appellants have argued that since all the facts regarding purchase orders/contracts as well as debit notes relating to the additional payments were in the knowledge of the department having been filed along with the periodical returns, the extended time-limit is not applicable. 3. We find that the impugned period is February, 1999, September, 1999 and May, 2000 and the show cause notice was issued on 11-2-02. The lower appellate authority has considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what is the exact nature of the amounts for which these terms are being used. In the instant case, the appellants were entitled to receive additional amounts if they supplied quantities of the impugned goods over and above a specified quantity-level during a month. These payments were certainly relatable to the supply of the goods and considerations for supply of the higher quantities of goods. One would think that the appellants have to invest more in terms of raw materials, availability of machinery, labour and capital to be able to manufacture and supply higher quantities of goods. As such, the extra amount received by them, by whatsoever name it is called, actually is a payment for the extra expenses incurred by the appellants apart fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, the price the buyers have paid to the appellants for excess supply over the specified limit is also ordinary competitive price, and there is no reason to hold that part of the price should not be included in the assessable value. Consequently, we uphold the Orders of the authorities below including the additional amounts for the purpose of determining the assessable value. As we have already noted, they have rightly treated the additional duty to be the cum-duty price and have accordingly, reduced the duty-demands correctly. 6. As regards the penalty, considering the disputed valuation issue involved in this case, we are of the view that the imposition of a hefty penalty equal to the additional duty-demand is not warranted. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
