TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission paid to the indent agent - HELD THAT:- The said commissions are paid to various dealers/agents who procure orders on behalf of the Appellant. The principle of law in this regard is well settled as the commission paid cannot be considered as discount by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COROMANDEL FERTILISERS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 1984 (8) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] . The Appellants are not eligible to deductions claimed on account of commission paid to the indenting agents. However, to extend the benefit of cum-duty price, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority to re-compute the duty, after extending the cum-duty price benefit to the Appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/288/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for re-calculation of duty after allowing admissible deductions from the price to the Assessee and extending the benefit of cum-duty price while determining the assessable value. In the de-novo proceedings, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dis-allowed deduction on account of commission paid to the indent agent and also had not allowed cum-duty price benefit to the Appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate Shri Vishal Agarwal for the Appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not following the remand direction of the Tribunal, whereunder, it is specifically directed to extend the benefit of cum-duty price in calculating the assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price on this count. Hence, the deduction is not admissible. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd Vs UoI 1984 (17) ELT 607 (SC), Sidhdhartha Tubes Ltd Vs CCE Indore (MP) 2006 (193) ELT 3 (SC), Deekens Polyesters Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Surat 2009 (234) ELT 129 (Tri-Ahmd). On the issue of extending cum-duty price, the learned A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Appellant could not demonstrate before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the price was inclusive of the duty. Hence, the benefit was denied. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. We find that this Tribunal while remanding the matter, categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be treated as trade discounts and hence is not deductible. To the same effect is the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Patel Detergents [1996 (87) E.L.T. 546 (Tri.)] and in the case of Precision Tooling System Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1997 (94) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.)] laying down that commission paid for sales effected through a selling agent cannot be held to be treated discount and hence is not deductible from assessable value. As such, we hold that the law on the said disputed issue stands settled against the appellant. We accordingly holding that such brokerage to agents has to be held as a part of the assessable value of the texturised yarn. 6. In the result, the Appellants are not eligible to deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
