9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the penalty on the assessee as well as on Mr. Sanjay Gambhir Managing Director of M/s. DD Industries Ltd. and Mr. Rajiv Gambhir Partner of M/s. DD Sales Corporation. 2. The issue involved is valuation of goods manufactured by the appellants which were sold to M/s. DD Sales Corporation. The impugned order held that such sales were to the related person and therefore the valuation has to be done as per the sale price of M/s. DD Sales Corporation. In fact in respect of an earlier Show Cause Notice covering the earlier period the same issue travelled up to CESTAT which vide its final order No. 856-858/2009-EX[DB] dated 30.10.2009 held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o establish that the said discounts were passed on to the ultimate buyers is not correct because they had submitted all the necessary documents to the adjudicating authority (iii) They were also not given the benefit cum duty price although such benefit was given to them by the Commissioner in his order dated 31.01.2006 in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2005 and that the adjudicating authority has not even dealt with this issue in the adjudication orders. 3. We have considered the matter. It is a fact that turnover discounts and cash discounts can not always be shown in the invoice as these discounts are worked out on the basis of the turnover or on the basis of the promptness of payment. Therefore their non-mention in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties and we have no reason to hold differently. 6. In view of the foregoing we dismiss Revenue's appeals. As regards the assessee'ss appeal, we are of the view that the issue needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority. Accordingly we waive the requirement of pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for denovo adjudication to the original adjudicating authority with the following direction: (i) The documentary evidence produced by the appellants with regard to the turnover discounts and cash discounts should be considered afresh with a view to deciding the admissibility thereof. Non-mention of these discounts in the invoices should not be a factor for deciding this issue. (ii) The appellants claim f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
