9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d - decided against Revenue. - E/198/09 - FO/A/75360/2017 - Dated:- 22-3-2017 - SHRI (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI DEVENDER SINGH, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri K.Choudhary, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue Shri Rajeev Agarwal, CA for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri (Dr.) Satish Chandra Present appeal is filed by the department against impugned Order-in-Original No.29-39/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2008 dated 30.12.2008. 2. In the present appeal, the issue involved is pertaining to the after Sales Service and Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI), which were provided free by the dealer on behalf of the assessee. In the show cause notice, the department was of the view that the same was subject to excise duty, but by the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided the customer takes the benefit of PDI and said services. It has no bearing on the assessable value as it is abundantly clear that to perform PDI as well as render said services is on the dealer's obligation on account of dealership agreement and not on any other count. Once it is held that the PDI and said services are not provided by the dealer on behalf of the petitioners, it cannot be treated as consideration for sale. It also cannot be treated as a deferred consideration. The respondents while issuing Circular dated 1 st July, 2002 have wrongly referred to the Rule 6 of the said Rules and have wrongly linked the expenses incurred for PDI and said services with expenses for advertisement or publicity. It is required to be not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that the petitioners are giving trade discount to the dealer, the petitioners are paying the Excise amount on the whole amount and not the amount which is arrived at after giving the trade discount. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharan's submission in terms of judgment in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Controller of Central Excise and Ors. reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J444) S.C. that the price which is relevant for the purpose of Excise duty was the price when the good first entered in the stream of trade is required to be accepted. In the present case, when the petitioners sell the car to the dealer, the goods enter the stream of trade for the first time and, therefore, the amount at which the car is sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
