9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 This notification was rescinded by the notification dated 12th September, 1986, with effect from 15th September, 1986.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 had sold the tractors during the period, 20th May, 1986 to 15th Septem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rices 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 the assessee and allowed the appeal giving the benefit of exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 reduction in the tractor's price. The case of the assessee is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument 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 notification allowing exemption and deficiency was made good by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
