9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , DGS&D and Canteen Stores Department. After delivery of the vehicles, the respondent offered four free services to the customers through the Dealer which is known as 'After Sales Services' (ASS) and the dealers also undertake the Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) of the vehicles. These were services were provided by the dealer on behalf of the respondent and the respondent was paying Rs.440/per vehicle to the dealers. Two show-cause notices were issued for the period 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2003. It has been alleged that the respondents derived additional consideration on account of ASS and PDI performed by the dealer which should be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The original authority by two adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute that PDI and ASS should be included in the assessable value. He further submits that in this case the PDI and ASS have already been included in the assessable value as evident from adjudication order. He further submits that in this case the assessee paid the amount to the dealer for PDI and ASS Rs.440/per vehicle which was included in the assessable value. He submits that the reimbursement to the dealer is on the basis of free coupons of the customers submitted by the dealer to the applicant. The differential amount as mentioned in the Revenue appeal is that the dealer had not submitted free coupons to applicants and therefore the said amount was not reimbursed to the dealer. There is no additional consideration flowing from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso relied upon the Board's instructions dated 1.7.2002 in support. The notice and the order clearly render a finding that there is no such consideration flowing from the dealer to the appellants. The impugned order can survive if and only if the appellants had not paid Rs.440/to the dealer. There is no such finding at all. On the contrary, the facts on record as noted in the show cause notice and in the impugned order is that it is clear that the appellants paid Rs.440/to the dealer. The recovery of additional consideration to be dealt with under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules Act arises only if the said amount has been received by the appellant from the dealer and not when they paid the said sum to the dealer. There cannot be any allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
