2018 (4) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are to be granted. It was also found that assessable value of the goods cleared to COCO are higher than the assessable value i.e. normal transaction value in the case of dealers Therefore there is no question of addition or retention of dealer's margin by the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Appellant Shri K. Krishnamurthy, Consultant, For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dt. 31/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the Order- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e related person at the time of removal to the buyer or where such goods are not sold to the buyer, the buyer being related person who sells the goods in retail. 5. On the other hand, the learned consultant appearing for the assessee has defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) after considering all the documents on record has rightly come to the conclusion and set aside the Order-in-Original. He further submitted that the assessable value of COCO outlets includes the dealers margin which is clearly evident from the comparative statements submitted by the assessee. The COCO has a higher assessable value when compared to the assessable value for sales through dealers. He further submitted that the difference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e "Retail Selling Price" which is over and above the price invoiced to the dealers i.e. (assessable value plus excisable duties plus local sales tax) and therefore they contended that the dealers margin not being a recovery as a part of the price at which the goods are sold to the dealer is not liable to excise duty. The appellant also contended that when the clearance is made to the COC's, the assessable value is determined in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules read with Section (l)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein to determine the assessable value a back working is done from the retail selling price and al/ the permissible deduction on account of taxes and the excise duties are excluded, to arrive at th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X