9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s some dispute as to the pattern of sales of these cars. It is however not in doubt that prior to 1-4-1997 the cars were sold directly by the manufacturer to the retail customers. The retail customers paid the manufacturer the price of the car. They subsequently paid to the dealer, from whom they took delivery of the car, charges due on account of octroi, sales tax, registration and insurance. General Motors gave the dealer an amount of Rs. 16000/- out of the purchase price of the car as its margin. The dealer incurred on servicing and pre-delivery inspection of car an amount which is again in dispute. The Additional Collector in his order impugned in the Appeal E/3540/00 finds it to be Rs. 477 per car and the Commissioner in her order impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly apply in those cases where the goods are sold by General Motors to the dealer and the dealer in turn sells them to the individual customer. This appears to be the position that has been prevailing from 1-4-1986 onwards. The counsel for the appellant brings to our notice an order dated 19-1-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda. In this order the Commissioner was concerned with the eligibility to deduction of the margin given by the manufacturer to the dealer out of the retail price collected by him from the customer. The Commissioner's order finds in paragraph 17 and 18 that after 1-4-1997 General Motors pattern of sale changed. After this date, the sale were in wholesale to the dealer who in turn sold the cars to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his account will be paid to the dealer periodically during out regular payment run made throughout each month. Payments will be made by means of cheque encashable in the Dealer's city or by Demand Draft". 6. This letter no doubt indicate that the sale was directly to the individual customer. However this is for the period prior to April 1997. No material has been shown to us that order of the Commissioner, Vadodara is wrong with regard to the sale patterns. It has not been shown that it has been appealed by the Department. We find no reason not to accept the finding that from April 1997 onwards the sale were in wholesale. 7. The Commissioner has declined to accept the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra and other similar decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
