9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IS had also, in turn, raised invoices on the consignees, wherein the entire discount received by the former from the respondents was not passed on to the consignees (buyers). In other words, M/s. DIS collected higher price for the goods from the consignees than the price paid by them to the respondents. The original authority considered this higher price as the normal price of the goods under Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act as this provision stood during the material period (1989-92) and, accordingly, held that the respondents were liable to pay differential duty over and above the amount of duty paid by them based on the price charged for the goods under the commercial invoices issued to M/s. DIS. Hence the above demand of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to their customers. These terms and conditions of the Agreement were carefully considered and interpreted by the lower appellate authority to mean that M/s. DIS were a dealer of the respondents and were entitled to a trade discount of 20% on the List Price of the goods. The above Agreement was dated 1-8-1989. We have also found on record a Supplementary Agreement dated 29-9-89, wherein M/s. DIS were allowed to offer discount for canvassing purchase orders in the face of competition from other manufacturers. It was further provided that such discount would be shared equally by the respondents and M/s. DIS. According to these terms and conditions, where M/s. DIS offered 20% discount to a customer, they would effectively get 30% discount f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities. The remand order required the original authority to undertake de novo adjudication of the dispute. The original authority, in fact, failed to arrive at a correct conclusion on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record. However, the appellate authority examined the records and reached the correct conclusion. In the result, we hold that the sale of the goods by the respondents to M/s. DIS was one of a dealer , which transaction was on principal to principal basis, and, therefore, the payment of duty made by the respondents on the assessable value of the goods determined on the basis of the discounted price was in order. The dealer was at liberty to offer any discount to his customers. The appellate Commissioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
