9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compressors were reduced on what was termed to be market considerations . The warranty period was limited to one month. By its letter of 10-2-1984, the company informed the Assistant Collector of this position. It said in view of the reduction in prices, the warranty is being limited to one month. Service/repairs beyond this are chargeable. The company also suggested provisional approval of the price list in the event of delay in approving the list. The same position was repeated in the forwarding letter dated 20-10-1984 when a fresh price list was filed. 2. Subsequently, the department took the view that these repair charges were not optional but formed part of the assessable value. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Although this is not specifically stated, the clear indication from the tenor of the reply is that these were small scale buyers. These are the two categories of persons to whom the appellant was selling goods covered by price lists in Part I, the other category being large O.E. buyers who were getting goods under Part II price list. A Part I price list is only required when the price is negotiated between the buyer and the seller. In such a situation there would not be a rationale for the existence of repair charges uniformly applicable to all buyers in the category. Such charges, if any, would have been negotiated along with the price. Further, once the appellant had furnished its defence in this regard, the burden of proving that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had informed the department that the prices had been reduced, warranty was limited to the one month and that service/repairs charges beyond this period were chargeable. The sentence reproduced from the letter conveyed the essential information that the appellant was required to furnish in terms of Rule 73C. The Departmental Representative has not been able to show us the requirement of law according to which other information which was not furnished was required to be furnished; nor he was able to tell us why the fact that the payment for both the goods and the repair charges was made simultaneously is in contravention of the provisions of law. It may, be as he says, that the appellant has used a device in order to gain benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
