9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the records. We are disposing of the appeal as also the cross objection. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the issue raised are as follows :- Respondent firm is engaged in the manufacture of branded pan masala. They filed price list for transfer of goods to duty paid godown at Noida for sale to dealers in U.P., West Bengal and Maharashtra. Deduction on account of average freight, insurance, regional trade discount in view of local sales tax, cash discount etc. were claimed. Department went into the correctness or otherwise of these claims. In the case of dealers in Maharashtra, the firm categorised them into two classes namely registered dealer and un-registered dealer. Registered dealers were those paying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paid duty of Rs. 4,73,95l.34 as duty claimed under section 11A ibid, within fifteen days of receipt of this order. Respondent herein challenged that order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal No. 24/CE/MRT/98. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 12-1-1998 allowed classification of buyers situated in Maharashtra into two categories namely registered dealers and unregistered dealers. The difference in price of the goods sold to them was also accepted. Regarding the other matters, the case was remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh disposal. 3. In this appeal, the department challenged the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) in classifying purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by section 4(1)(a) proviso (i) to the Central Excise Act. When mere is a intelligible differentia between registered dealers and unregistered dealers different values can be fixed for sale of goods as provided by the aforesaid provision of the Act. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal filed at the instance of the department. 5. Coming to the cross objection, the short question that arises for consideration is whether 2% trade discount offered by the manufacturer, namely the respondent herein, is deductible in computing the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act provides that trade discount allowed in accordance with normal practice of the wholesale trade will not be included in computing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent must be deducted from the price of the goods for arriving at the assessable value.
6. Learned Counsel representing the respondent manufacturer submitted before us that he is not pressing the claim put forth in the memorandum of cross objection relating to Rs. 10,718.17. It is stated to be duty short paid by the respondent in the impugned order.
7. In view of our conclusions on the appeal and memorandum of cross objection, nothing further remains to be examined by the adjudicating authority as ordered in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). So the order of remand passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is also vacated.
8. Appeal and cross objections are disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
