9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as suppression resulting into loss of revenue to the exchequer. 2. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order had examined the matter in great depth and had concluded that the so-called contract price, as made out by the appellant, cannot be held as the sole consideration for the sale of goods and the goods thus shown to be supplied as free supply were required to be assessed, as detailed in the show cause. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon the purchase order given by SPIC (date illegible kept at page 140 as RUD No. 13) in which in respect of the same material supplied, two sets of quantities have been drawn out. Creating a distinction - one bearing a price and the other, treated as free supplies. In this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindustan Lever Ltd., reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), for the proposition that a trade discount is allowable when a dealer receives from the assessee a stated extra quantity of goods, if he bought certain stipulated quantity. (2) Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 850 (Tribunal), which upholds the arrangement of allowing the quantity discount. (3) Bombay Latex Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 527 allows the bonus articles cleared by the appellant without payment of duty. 5. The learned authorized representative of the department, however, on relies upon the construct of sub-section (1) of Section 4 as currently existing : Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deduction for valuation purposes and that trade discount would mean discount usually expressed as a percentage deduction given to the buyer. It was also contended that there was a clear case of suppression inasmuch as in their returns statutorily filed to the department, the appellant had deliberately not brought out the fact that certain portions of the goods cleared were done as free supplies. Accordingly, it was argued that the demand was not time barred. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the record. We find that in the ER.1 form returns, submitted to the department the appellant had indicated the total assessable value which has camouflaged the practice of clearance of free supplies by them. On perusal of the proforma of form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted for in such a way that their obligation under the law is fulfilled. We are at a loss to understand how the so-called quantity discount could range between 30% to 150% as the same was not be explained nor demonstrated in terms of the cost structure neither before the lower authorities, nor before us. The same, in our view cannot be blindly taken as a quantity discount so as to benefit the appellants, at least at this juncture. In Bombay Latex Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we notice the fact that the whole issue arises in terms of the old Section 4, under whose umbrella, the very concept of transaction value is missing. As regards Anglo French (supra), the issue involved is not comparable to the subject dispute. Here we are concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
