TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present Writ Petition No. 352 of 1983 in this Court and obtained a stay order on 21st February 1983 requiring the assessment to be done on the value arrived after deducting the alleged post-manufacturing expenses from the selling price on the condition that the assessee was required to execute a bond in favour of the Department that in the event of the petition being dismissed, the assessee shall pay to the Department the requisite amount. 2. After this interim order was passed on 21st February 1983, this Court passed a further order on the 9th December 1983 in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others etc. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and etc. etc. reported in AIR 1984, Supreme Court 420 = 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). One of us - Pendse J., passed the said order on 9th December 1983 giving certain guidelines and fixing the time schedule for deciding the issue of post-manufacturing expenses in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the above said decision. 3. In terms of the said order passed on 9th December 1983, the assessee filed a further revised statement of deduction on the ground of post-manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee had paid duty during the relevant four months of July and August 1981 and April and July 1982 has not been disputed. There was also a covering letter that the duty was paid under protest. It is, however, true that while the gate-passes for the other period, from October 1980 to February 1983, excluding these four months, did bear the endorsement "duty paid under protest", the gate-passes for these four months did not bear such an endorsement. In our opinion, it is not possible to reject the claim of the assessee for abatement in respect of these four months also merely on the ground stated above. The assessee would, therefore, be entitled to claim abatement on account of the freight and transportation charges paid during the four months of July and August 1981 and April and July 1982. (ii) Bonus to Dealers : The 2nd item on account of which deduction was claimed related to bonus to dealers. The Assistant Collector has observed that deduction on this ground was not ascertainable at the time of removal of the goods and that these expenses were incurred after the date of the delivery of the goods. Mr. Bhatt, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the appellants and will remain liable to the appellants for realisation of the price of the goods sold to various parties and for such services rendered by the selling agents to the appellants, the selling agents, would be entitled to commission. In these facts, the Supreme Court held that the commission which was paid by the appellants to the selling agents was for services rendered by them as agents and, therefore, such commission cannot be considered to be in the nature of trade discount which may qualify for deduction in determining the assessable value of the goods. In our view, in the present case dealing with bonus to dealers given on a principal to principal basis, the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment can have no application. In our opinion, having regard to the fact that there was evidence on record which showed an established trade practice of grant of bonus to the dealers, the claim for abatement on this account ought to have been granted. It will, however, be necessary to remand the matter back to the Assistant Collector for quantifying the exact amount after verification of the material on record. (iii) Commission to Agents : The 3rd item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible to disturb the conclusion of the Assistant Collector that the assessee is not entitled to any deduction on account of the expenses incurred for the alleged secondary or special packing. (v) Interest on Security Deposits from Dealers and Agents : This claim was disallowed on the ground that these deposits were held by the petitioners and that obviously the same were utilised in the working capital. The contention of the assessee is that interest on security deposits of dealers were undisputedly incurred after the delivery of the goods. According to the assessee, such interest does not go into the value of the goods or their marketability. However, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 630 (Bom.) the said claim has to be rejected. (vi) Interest on Dealers' Deposits against direct despatches : The claim under this head has been disallowed on the ground that the deposits were held by the petitioners and obviously the same were utilised in the working capital. The assessee's contention is that interest on security deposits on direct despatches were undisputedly incurred afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
