1997 (3) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i K.K. Kapoor, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. - Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware had filed a price list declaring uniform trade discount of 5%. Subsequently, respondent introduced two lower qualities of products, namely, Class II and Class III and filed two revised price lists effective from 10-7-1980 and 22-9-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Collector (Ap­peals) on the ground that the first revised price list had not been approved at all by the Assistant Collector and the second revised price list effective from 22-9-1980 had been approved, therefore, additional trade discount cannot be regarded as admissible for any period prior to 22-9-1980. The Collector (Ap­peals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that this was a new co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the price lists could not have approved the same retrospectively and therefore, the two orders of approval are void and therefore, the refund claim was not tenable. This ground also could have been raised before the Collector (Appeals) when he was dealing with the appeal filed by the manufacturer against the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim. As we have indicate....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI