Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd.

2016 (7) TMI 470 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Valuation of - deduction of discount offered from the depot / from the stockiests and sub stockiests - claim was rejected on the ground that the respondents failed to supplied the true and correct figures of TOD passed on to their buyers in respect of clearances effected from their factory. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim - Held that:- Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has given specific finding to the effect that he has found respondents have actually passed on the benefit of turnover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndent ORDER The respondents M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of engines parts. The respondents were providing certain discounts to their buyers on the basis of turnover since the quantum of turnover could only be ascertained at the end of the year, the respondent resorted to provisional assessment. The said provisional assessment was finalized by the assistant Commissioner by denying the deduction of turnover discounts on the ground that the discount is not offered at the depots and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing marketing circulars to their stockiests and sub-stockiests communicating that the stockiests and sub-stockiests are eligible for turnover discount subject to attainment of prescribed sales and subject to fulfilment of other terms & conditions. Thus, the buyers of the appellant were fully aware of the turnover discount scheme prior to the clearance of goods from factory of the appellant. I also found that the appellant actually passed on the benefit of turnover discount to the eligible st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lied on the grounds of appeal. Learned AR argued the respondents could not claim deductions at the factory gate itself as the discounts were passed at the end of the year. He further argued that the respondents failed to produce the evidence that the discounts actually been passed on to the buyers. It was argued that in the instant case, the quantum of discount was known to the dealers at the time of removal of goods. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the case is covered by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

its deduction is not permissible. This plea, in our view, is not correct, in view of the clear judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court on this issue in the case of Union of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to turnover discount held in clear terms that its deduction would be permissible even though it is quantified on half yearly basis, depending upon the volume purchases made by the dealers. We also find that in the respondent s own case reported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version