9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertisements, after sales services etc. were incurred by the respondent company. - Held that:- Reading of the show cause notices that main reason for taking action against the respondent assessee was that JRE was dummy of BIL. However, after going through the order of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, we find that this plea of the appellant has not been accepted as proved. After detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal Nos. 9571-9578 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Pooja Sharma and Shri B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, M.P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, Ms. L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, Hemant Bajaj, Ambarish Pan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and nurtured with the single motive that cost of manufacture be reduced by bifurcation and the cost of sale promotion, advertisements, after sales services etc. were incurred by the respondent company. 4. Adjudicating Authority vide its order in original dated 27-1-1999 held that the project report could not be called a device to reduce the burden of duty since at the time when the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct report submitted by the Respondent was of no importance since at the said time the rate of duty was specific. The tribunal rejected the contention that the certificate given by Charted Accountants regarding the payment of interest of JRE was cover-up operation and concluded that JRE had accepted loans which were returned with interest to the manufacturer and hence the services of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to principal basis. In fact, the goods were supplied by the JRE to BIL at the same rates at which within the other companies, namely, Uptron and Dixon Utilities were supplying. Therefore, no benefit was even secured by the BIL on the basis of the alleged relationship. On this aspect the case is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the judgment of this very Bench in the case of Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
