2002 (7) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the ground that they have made exports to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of duty. The appellants claimed that such clearances were exempted under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, inasmuch as their turnover was below Rs. 30.00 lakh (Rupees thirty lakh) and as such, no duty was payable on the same. The said contention of the appellant company was not accepted by the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand as raised in the notice and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) upon the appellant company. Against the said Order dated 22-3-93, the appellants filed an appeal there against before the Tribunal. The said appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its Order No. A-462/CAL/98, dated 14-5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rupees fifteen thousand two hundred twenty-one and paise fifty). The Commissioner has observed that while some of the bills do not carry the name of 'Centranus', some bills have suffered corrections to show 'Centranus' which appears to have been done with motivation. The appellants' contention is that all the records were seized by the Revenue and were lying in their custody. As such, it was not open to the appellants to do any manipulation in the record. The adjudicating authority's findings are thus factually incorrect. 4. The next dispute relates to the discount claimed by the appellants having been given to their buyers. The appellants have claimed deductions from the value on account of discount amounting to Rs. 35,985.59 (Rupees thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner to give the benefit to the appellants on account of sales of 'Centranus', and reduce the value by the said sales. Similarly, in respect of the discounts, the appellants' contention is that they have been given directly to the buyer and the realisation of the money from their customers is only to the extent shown in the invoices. If that be so, the discount is an admissible deduction and the money actually realised from their customers, is liable to be put to tax. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty and remand the matter to the Commissioner for recalculation of the demand of duty against the appellants in the light of the observations made by us as above. Appeal is thus allowed by way of reman .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X