9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 agent and the discount received by the distributor was a commission and not discount eligible for abatement from the list price. We find that the Commissioner has passed this part of the order following several judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 lists filed by the respondents with the department periodically and the show-cause notice issued on 15.06.1995 for demanding short levy relating to clearances made prior to Apr.'94 is hit by limitation. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai-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 goods. 5. We find that in the show-cause notice in this case was issued in June '95 and impugned clearances were made during Sept.'92 to Mar.'94. In view of the settled posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
