TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Revenue - E/123 & 131/07 - M/88891/16/EB, A/88892-88894/16/EB - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.S Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Appellant Shri.TC Nair, Advocate for Respondent ORDER M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (SAIPL) are manufacturers of motor vehicles. M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. were selling motor vehicles through their dealers appointed for various geographical jurisdictions. In terms of agreement of M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. with their dealers, the dealers were required to sell goods in their own geographical jurisdictions and in case they sold the goods in some other dealers in geographical jurisdiction, they were required to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineering Ltd., - 2016 (331) ELT 153 (Tri-Mumbai). The learned Counsel for M/s.Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the penalty paid by dealer is not in connection with the sale made. It is solely relatable to post sale breach of contract. 3. The learned AR for the Revenue cited various decisions of Tribunal on the merits of the case. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. - 2004 (165) ELT 127 (Tri-Del). He also relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. - 2004 (167) ELT 385 (SC). 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the Revenue s appeal has been filed solely for enhancement of penalty from ₹ 1,50,000/- to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable value. In the said decision, the Tribunal has observed as follows: 5. We have gone through the facts of the case and find that the facts are squarely covered by the case of Amco Batteries (supra). In the said case it has been observed that : 3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner himself in para 5 has clearly noted that there is no written agreement. He draws conclusion from reply dated 9-3-2005 of the assessee, wherein they have reimbursed to few of the dealers, to come to the conclusion that there is oral agreement between the assessee and the dealers to whom reimbursement has not been done. We are not agreeable with this finding. There has to be written agreement with an enforcement clause to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
