9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to the restructuring of the Central Excise Tariff and thereafter, under Heading 87.04 and 87.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and filed price lists No. 2/PL/85-86 with effect from 20.11.85 for approval by the proper officer in proforma Part I under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules,1944. Thereafter, they filed price list No. 4/PL/85-86 with effect from 12.8.85 in proforma Pt.I and price list No.5/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 12.8.85 in proforma Part V, Price List No. 6/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 6.9.85 in Proforma Part I and No.7/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 6.9.85 in Proforma Part V, Price List No. 12/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 21.11.85 in Proforma Part I and No.11/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 21.11.85 in Proforma Part V, 19/PL/85-86 w.e.f. 5.2.86 in Proforma Part V, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the clearances. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the assessee had filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). The Ld. Collector (Appeals) had taken the view that the wholesale price was available, the assessment should have been done at that price and the Assistant Collector was not justified in taking a retail price as the basis for assessment when the wholesale price was available and had ordered that the price declared by the assessee in Part I should be taken for the purposes of assessment and had allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri V.M. Doiphode, the Ld. SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has reiterated the facts. Shri D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of retail sales only. Therefore, Appellate Collector was right in setting aside the finding of the Assistant Collector that there existed a wholesale price and the assessable value was to be determined in terms of Section 4(l)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Mehta, the Ld. Consultant, has referred to another judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India and Others reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 676 (Born.) where it has been held that the commission allowed by the manufacturers to its dealers will not form part of the assessable value. Shri Mehta has argued that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct in law and the appeal filed by the revenue needs to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promotion of sales and other customer services that customers who buy the vehicles may require. Furthermore, as recorded by the Assistant Collector, territorial dealers are sold a single motor vehicle and it is on this single motor vehicle that the Rs. 5,000/- deduction is claimed. But the Act allows a deduction of discount only in respect of wholesale trade. 8. Furthermore, there is the serious doubt about the genuineness of this deduction claimed by the assessees. They have shifted their stand in respect of Rs. 800/- which in the beginning, formed part of Rs. 5,000/- deduction claimed as dealer s commission. If the Rs. 800/- were for service charges, (even though they subsequently changed their stand on this), it could not be dealer s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
