9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T)]. This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 343/2002, dated 15-5-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Shri M.K. Madhyastha learned JDR appearing for the revenue pleaded that the respondents are manufacturers of tubes for tyres, curing bags, flaps etc., and are marketing their product through their depot and also through their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) is not correct. The agreement entered into between the respondents and the commission agents/distributors states that the latter are responsible for canvassing and procuring orders for the former s products. The agreement also holds the commission agents/distributors solely and entirely responsible for collection of payment from the parties and they were authorised by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d agents for procuring orders from customers is not in the nature of trade discounts and is inadmissible. 4. On behalf of the respondents Shri G. Subramanyam, Advocate pleaded that the commission agent/distributor were also purchasing goods from the respondents and selling those to customers. Therefore, it is not correct that in all cases, the commission agent/distributor were only procuring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable value. Accordingly we set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the case back to him for determining the amount of commission paid to commission agents/distributors where the commission agents/distributors had procured only the orders for the respondents and not purchased the goods themselves and determine the duty liability on such commission amount which is not deductible as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
