9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants imported a consignment of 99 packages containing Tension Stringing Equipment, accessories and spares from C.R.F. TESMEC, Italy. Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of the goods and in the invoice, the total cif Bombay was shown as U.S. Dollars 7,13,930.75. The price ex-works was shown as U.S. Dollars 6,74,972.00 and 9.8% discount deducted from the price ex-works was shown as U.S. Dollars 66,147.25. Goods were cleared on payment of duty on the gross invoice value since the discount was disallowed at the time of clearance. Subsequently the refund application was lodged by the appellants on the plea that there is no ground for the Department to disallow 9.8% discount as the same has been allowed to them by the suppliers of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he supplier, even if issued post importation, is relevant evidence that other importers would be given the same discount. Hence the same is permissible as a deduction under S. 14(1). He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharati Overseas Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs [1988 (36) E.L.T. 657] and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1983 (12) E.L.T. 958] in support of the first proposition and with reference to second proposition he also referred to the decisions in the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1983-ECR-1206-D) and General Manager, Central Rlys. v. Collector of Customs [1983 (1) ETR-441]. It was contended by him that burden lies on the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % discount was normal in the absence of production of detailed discussions or in the absence of an Agency agreement. He contended that burden lies on the party to prove that discount was not of special nature since term special discount has been used in the modified offer after negotiation. He also referred to the decisions (i) Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (18) E.L.T. 203], (ii) Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 (S.C.)] and (iii) Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Appollo Tyres, [1987 (32) E.L.T. 408] in support of his contention that special discount is not admissible and while quotations for the same goods from the same Supplier shows higher v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed discussions and negotiations by allowing 9.8% discount. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking into note of the fact that special discount 9.8% on the total ex-work prices has been used in the modified proposal by the supplier and the price was agreed under special terms, it cannot be said that discount was normal discount as it was rightly argued by the D.R. Special discount, as such, is not permissible deduction while determining the assessable value under Section 14(1) of the Act as Section 14(1) reveals that the value has to be assessed on the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as it was rightly held in the case of Oswal Woollen Mills by the Delhi High Court and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
