TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is set aside. Further, we hold that for the period September, 1987 to November, 1988, the price at which the M/s. RMPL sold the goods to M/s. PDV is the assessable value. In these terms, we have decided the assessable value. As there were no malafide on the part of M/s. RFI for short payment of duty, the penalty is not imposable. - in this case, penalty of ₹ 25,000/- has been imposed on M/s. RMPL. As M/s. RMPL is an artificial person and in the facts of circumstances of the case, malafides against M/s. RMPL are not stand proved as they have conceded that the price at which M/s. RMPL sold the goods to M/s. PDV is the correct assessable value. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1928 -1929 of 2006 - FINAL ORDER NO. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Shri Bajarang Enterprises (in short SBE) who in turn sold the fans to M/s. RMPL who further sold them to M/s. PDV. Certain supplies were made directly by the appellants at the instance of M/s. PDV. The appellant discharged duty on the price charged to SBE. 4. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that M/s. PDV acted as appellants commission agent, therefore the assessable value will be the price at which M/s. PDV sold the fans to whole seller. For determination of the assessable value, the goods cleared through M/s. SBE, thus, alleged to be dummy entrepreneur as they are related parties. Therefore, it was alleged that appellants has under valued the goods and not paid the correct duty. The sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period prior to 1.7.2000, there was no concept of transaction value. During that period, the price at which the goods were generally sold is the assessable value and it is admitted fact that 95% of the production was sold to M/s. PDV as sole distributor at a certain price. Therefore, the price at which the goods have been sold to M/s. PDV is the assessable value. In that circumstances, the demand pertained to January, 1986 to August, 1987 is required to be set aside. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Elgi Equipments Ltd. vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2007 (215) ELT 348 (SC)]. 6. For clearance during the period September, 1987 to November, 1988, he submits that the price at which goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven the benefit of trade discount to large number of its dealers at a particular rate, then, it would constitute normal practice of the wholesale trade in which event the assessee would be entitled to trade discount across the board. Once the assessee proves that 20% (as in this case) was the normal practice of the trade, then Department cannot refuse it on the ground that some dealers got the discount at 8%. 11. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we find that as a general rule in this case, the assessee has given the benefit of trade discount of 20% to majority of its dealers; that in fact they have given discount at 12% to big dealers where they gave discount of 8% to small dealers, and, therefore, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
