9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/106/2005 - 40733/2017 - Dated:- 15-5-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri C.R. Raghavendra, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar The respondents are manufacturers of electric motor and mono block pumps who removed the final products through their branches to the dealers on payment of Central Excise duty. From the list price, they deducted the discount actually allowed as also the discount they actually proposed to extend at the end of the year. Further, they also raised commercial invoices from the branches to the dealer. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir own case, in respect of Pump Division, this Tribunal reported in 2008 (226) ELT 375 (Tri. Chennai) had held in favour of them. 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts. 5. As submitted by learned Advocate, the very same issue has been decided by this Tribunal in their own case cited supra. The relevant portion of the case law of the said decision are quoted herein:- 5. The ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Del. ) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 245 (Tri.-Del.). In the Mahavir Spinning Mills case, the Tribunal decided that additional discount passed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he invoice. In the instant case, the revenue has not adduced any evidence to establish that the discount in question was not passed on to the dealers of the respondent and was retained by the respondent. There is no evidence also to show that the impugned amount represented compensation for after sales service incurred by the dealers on behalf of Texmo Industries in which case it could be argued that it constituted additional consideration includible in the assessable value, in the circumstances, we find that the discount given was a purely commercial one and admissible for deduction from the list price in determining the assessable value. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the revenue's appeal as devoid of merit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
