9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y discount. Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice dated 13-2-1996 in which it is alleged that the appellants had allowed the stated discount to their sister concern without establishing by any acceptable evidence of the criteria at which the discount is allowed. It was alleged that inasmuch as they had allowed the Special Discount of Rs. 14,705.28 in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they have evaded the payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,205.78. Therefore, they were called upon to show-cause as to why the Central Excise duty of the aforesaid amount should not be recovered from them under Section 11A and why a penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 173Q of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the Assistant Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,205.78 on the appellants and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on them. 3. The party filed an appeal but the same stood rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta vide his order dated 18-9-2000. 4. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the respondent. Ld. Consultant for the appellants does not dispute that the buyer in this case, viz., M/s. Paper Machine Wire Industries is their sister concern under the same group of Companies. He would however like to argue, that the transaction in this case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s at arm s length. In the present case, the appellants have not been able to advance any criterian based on which they have allowed the discount of 15% on the assessable value to their sister concern. Further, such discount is not being allowed to independent buyers situated on the same footing. The reliance placed on the decision of Taparia Tools referred to supra by the ld. Consultant for the appellants is not relevant inasmuch as that decision is on the issue of availability of discounts to different classes of buyers situated in different Regions/States of the country. On the facts of the present case, the buyers of the appellants cannot be considered a different class of buyers as per the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
