9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory at Noida. They sell the photocopiers directly to end customers/users based on contract between the company and the end users. The appellant claimed abatement at 28% of the retail price to arrive at value in terms of Rule 6(a) of the Valuation Rules, 1975. The appellant submits that their marketing pattern is identical to that of their competitor M/s. Modi Xerox Limited and therefore claims abatement at the same rate as claimed by their competitor M/s. Modi Xerox Limited . (b) The original authority by his order dated 31-8-2001 held that deduction at the rate of 28% from the retail price cannot be allowed. He also recorded the findings that the appellant has not produced any relevant details except relying on the decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon by the appellant in support of their claim and found not acceptable. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The relevant portions of the instructions of CBEC relating to valuation of goods sold in retail are reproduced below :- "(c) Clause (a) of Rule 6: Retail Sales (i) Where the goods are sold by the assessee in retail, clause (a) of rule 6 provides authority for determination of value on the basis of the retail price after making suitable reduction. The amount to be reduced should be such as would bring the net value in conformity with the price at which the assessee would have sold such goods in the course of wholesale trade to a buyer other than a related person. (ii) The amount to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges that deduction from the retail price should be determined keeping in view the margin of difference between the assessable value and the retail price of comparable goods, the assumption being that roughly the percentage difference between the retail price and the assessable value of comparable goods will not vary to a large extent. It also envisages that where this margin of difference varies considerably some averaging may have been done. It has also prescribed certain examples as guidance. 7.1 We find that the appellant has been demanding 28% abatement from retail price blindly seeking to adopt the same extent of abatement granted in the case of their competitors M/s Modi Xerox Limited. The have not produced any relevant details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
