9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; The dealers are periodically credited with the 5% of the list price in the commercial invoices monthly or at the end of the year. In the credit notes, the respondents described the discounts as "after sales service allowance". When the pumps manufactured were exempt from payment of duty upto 1.3.2002 also the respondents used to describe the 5% amount actually credited to the dealers as after sales service allowance. 2. Notices were issued to the respondent to recover duty on the above 5% amount described as "after sales service allowance" treating it as additional consideration received by the assessee during the period 1.3.2002 31.01.2004. The original authority dropped the proceedings, finding that the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month itself. The Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied that the respondents did not collect after sales service charge from customers or passed on to the dealers. There was no evidence to show that the dealers had actually incurred any expenses towards any after sales service nor the assessee had an enforceable legal right against the dealers to force them incur on their behalf such expenses to be later on met from the so called discount. It was settled law that discount by what ever name it was called was permissible deduction whether it was given in the invoices or by way of credit notes provided the same was actually passed on. The impugned order was passed on the above findings. 3. In the appeal before us, reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y inspection and after sales service did not need to form part of the assessable value of the automobiles while discharging central excise duty. The Ld. Counsel submitted that even if the impugned charges related to after sales service, the same was not required to be included in the assessable value. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. In the Bombay Tyres International(dated 14/15 Nov 1983) [1984] E.L.T. 329 (SC) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court decided that the discount granted to buyer of excisable goods described by whatever name was not to be included in the assessable value provided that the discount was known at or prior to removal of the goods on sale . Such discount was not to be disallowed only be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
