2009 (8) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Revenue's appeal challenges the relief granted by the learned Commissioner holding that the discount passed on to the buyers shall not form the part of assessable value. Learned SDR submits that performance of the year 2003-2004 has resulted with discount in the financial year 2004-2005. Such a situation was not known to revenue and the manner of grant of discount was also unknown to record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not caused any injury to revenue by any unlawful discount passed on to the buyers but was only to boost its sale, that cannot be held to be assessable value. Discount allowed was a price reduction for future without giving rise to any flow back to the respondent for which the respondent gets support of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Pepsico India Holdings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... removal of the goods, that cannot be disallowed to hike assessable value of the goods so removed. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record and also have gone through the citations made as well as the reasons advanced by both sides. There is nothing on record to show that the discount allowed by the respondent has unduly benefited buyers and buyers were related or there was reversal of the bene .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X