TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, which they sell through a network of dealers and sub-dealers. This appeal filed by the Revenue challenge as not legal and proper the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping demand of, (i) duty on part of the discount declared in the price lists allowed to the distributor instead of allowing the entire discount to the buyer of the goods from the assessee (sub-dealer) and, (ii) duty on the proportionate cost of moulds received by the assessee from the buyers to manufacture the goods and not included in the value of these goods cleared during the material period Sept.'92 to Mar.'94. 2. Grounds stated in the appeal as regards the first issue are that the distributor not being buyer of the goods was a commission agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants in all cases were as per price list filed and approved. Hence the appellants were eligible for full discount. In the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal case (supra), the Tribunal found that the trade discount of 20% was given to sub-dealer and 2.5% of the discount taken back and paid to main dealer in whose jurisdiction the sub-dealer was located. The Tribunal held that 20% was admissible for deduction as main dealers were not selling agents. The Commissioner found that in the instant case, the distributors were not commission agents and, therefore, the assessee had abated the discount correctly for the purpose of payment of duty. 2.1. We also find that the above pattern of discount being allowed was declared in the price list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith intent to evade payment of duty. This view, we find, is supported by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Bright Brothers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2004 (61) R.L.T. 679 (CESTAT-Mum.)]. (ii) KK Nag Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III [2003 (58) R.L.T. 159 (CESTAT-Che.)]. (iii) CCE vs. I.T.W. Signode ( india ) Ltd. [2005(179) ELT 120(Tri-Bang)]. In Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2000(117) ELT.578(Tri)] , the Larger Bench of the Tribunal gave a quietus to the dispute and decided that the proportionate cost of moulds supplied free by customer and used in the manufacture of moulds was includible in the assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
