TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 15,63,567.55 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000/-. There were 6 show cause notices and the total demand covered by these show cause notices were as above. A penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed against each show cause notice. 2.  The short question involved in the above 6 appeals are whether the appellants are correct in excluding an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the assessed value towards trade discount said to have been granted to the dealers. The facts reveal that the value of diesel and petrol operated Montana 4D Cars were shown as Rs. 69,017.90 and Rs. 61,714.45 respectively in the relevant price list. But the cum-duty value is shown as Rs. 94,500/- for diesel car and Rs. 85,400/- for petrol car. However as seen from the invoice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is a normal trade practice to grant trade discount to the dealers as would be seen from the credit notes enclosed in the appeal. He therefore contended that the learned Collector grossly erred in holding that the trade discount is only an after thought to circumvent the law. The learned Collector should have appreciated the documents produced by the appellants. He pointed out that the findings of the Collector that the appellant has failed to prove beyond doubt is not correct. He further pointed out that in keeping with the normal trade practice the appellant has granted such discount and as long as the records indicate the grant of trade discount by whatever name it is called the same is not includible in the assessable value. He also po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order. He in fact drew our attention to para 6 of the order. He pointed out that there is nothing to show whether the customer is aware of the nature of allowance of the discount at the time of removal of the goods. He pointed out that the benefit has not been accrued to the customers. The appellants failed to declare the trade discount in the price list before approval. They also could not point out that it has been passed on to the customers. He also relied on the letter dated 12-6-1989 to M/s. M.S. & S. Engineers, Cochin wherein the appellants committed themselves to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as commission for each car. Even assuming that the commission is available to the dealer, he pointed out that they have not passed on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- from 13-3-1990 to till date in respect of Sipani D 1 diesel/with radial tyres/with metallic parts (M.S. & S. Engineers Certificate). The same thing is reported by other dealers like Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., all dated January 1994 except M.S. & S. Engineers wherein no date of the certificate is shown. It is pertinent that there is no co-relation between what is claimed and what is shown now. It is, therefore, an after thought to circumvent the law. Further, it is not known whether the discount has actually been passed on to the customer, especially when the sales are directly to the customers. Since, the appellant has failed to prove their case beyond doubt, it appears to be case of overriding commission given to the agent and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se was decided on the facts available therein. In that particular case there was no sale to any dealer. So also the sales being effected through the dealers as in the present case was not there in that case. 9. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 147. In that particular case there was no wholesale price in the case before us and they had retail price. The benefit also has proved to have gone in favour of the customers in that case. But in this case there is no such proof. 10. So also reliance was placed on the decision reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 90. In that particular case the appellants themselves are rendering publicity and sales services to the customers and the cost of ....