2011 (1) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsp; Duty of Rs. 2,00,43,583/- stands confirmed against the appellants along with imposition of identical amount of penalty. The said duty is confirmed against the appellant by Commissioner on two grounds. A part of the demand is by rejecting the appellant s claim of deduction in respect of discount given to the dealer. The appellant s contention is that show cause notice was issued to them alleg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssion whether discounts were actually passed on to dealer or not.   2. Second part of the demand is in respect of insurance recovered by them from their customers, which do not actually stand spent on insurance. Learned advocate fairly agree that the issue of insurance was also subject matter of appeal in the appellant s own case in the earlier order and Tribunal vide Order No.A/1624-1626/WZ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was rejected but has differentiated the same on facts. As such, the factual position available gain importance.   4. In view of the above, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the order to original adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication, after considering the detailed facts available and after taking into account the subsequently passed decision of the Tribunal being order No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X