Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (2) TMI 604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of removal they are liable to pay duty on the price mentioned in the invoices for removal from the factory without any abatement – Held that: - - pre-deposit of duty demands, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of these appeals. The stay applications are allowed. - E/1450-1451/2009 - 131-132/2010 - Dated:- 19-2-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Parvesh Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - These are the applications for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demands alongwith interest of Rs. 17 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts, they are liable to pay duty on the price mentioned in the invoices for removal from the factory without any abatement. It is on this basis that two show cause notice; one for the period from October 2006 to February 2007 and another for the period for March 2007 were issued for recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 17,68,133/- and Rs, 5,86,593/- respectively alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. Both the show causes notices were adjudicated by Joint Commissioner and vide order 47/CE/JC/2008 dated, September 16, 2008 and 48/CE/JC/2008 dated, September 24,. 2008, the duty demands were confirmed alongwith interest and penalties of equal amount were imposed. 2.2 On appeal to the Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parts from the factory to the depots, that the actual price at which the pressure cooker parts were sold from the depots was MRP less 41.33% as the appellants were giving various discounts like general trade discount of upto 25% on purchase of stipulated quantities as per the sales orders, cash discount upto 3.5%, prompt payment discount upto 1%, quarter ending discount upto 6% given on purchase of silpulated quantities by dealers during a particular quarter, that the weighted average of the discounts is 33.57% and in addition to this, the sales tax, and local taxes are 7.75%, that the Department by disallowing 35% abatement on the invoice price, which is the MRP price, seeks to charge duty on the MRP price which is not correct, chat the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y demand, interest and penalty reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding in the impugned order and pleaded that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4.1 The dispute in this case is about the valuation of the pressure cooker parts. While the pressure cookers are notified under Notification No. 2/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated, 1-3-2006 for assessment of duty on the basis of value determined with reference to declared MRP and as per this notification for determining the assessable value of pressure cookers an abatement of 30% on the declared MRP is allowed, the pressure cooker parts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of removal from the factory, There is no evidence produced by the Department that at the time of removal, the goods were being sold from the depots at the full MRP price without any abatement. In fact, in this regard, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations at the time of hearing that the appellant produced some invoices of the depots at Ambala, Delhi and Hyderabad reflecting discount of 35% are to the contrary. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the Joint Commissioner's order had relied upon Range Officers verification report dated 24-2-09 which was received after the hearing of this matter and as such no opportunity was given to the appellant to defend themselves in respect of this report of the Range Super .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates