9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, a manufacturer and dealer in tractors, claimed exemption on the basis of the notification dated 1st February, 1985. By this notification, exemption was given in regard to sales of tractors, sold on the price prevailing on 31st December, 1984. This notification was rescinded by the notification dated 12th September, 1986, with effect from 15th September, 1986. The assessee claimed that it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 1986. His reasoning was that by passage of time, the prices of the material had gone up and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the manufacturing cost of the tractor could go down. This is how the exemption claimed by the assessee for the aforesaid period was refused. The appellate authority agreed with the assessing officer. The Tribunal in second appeal accepted the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and to make profit always. Normally no dealer will sell the goods at a lesser price incurring huge loss. But in this case, there is no evidence on behalf of the Revenue that in fact, the tractors were sold at a higher price and the invoices were given of a lesser price. Rather, the assessing officer himself concluded that the price of accessories was increased with a view to offsetting the red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sser price during the months of May to September, 1986. This argument has to be rejected outright, because the manufacturing cost of the tractor might go up, but the seller is free to sell his commodity at any price, he likes. The case of the assessing officer is that the real price of the tractor was not shown but under a well-set design, the price of tractor was reduced to take advantage of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
