1990 (2) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 30th January, 1989. The assessee, a manufacturer and dealer in tractors, claimed exemption on the basis of the notification dated 1st February, 1985. By this notification, exemption was given in regard to sales of tractors, sold on the price prevailing on 31st December, 1984. This notification was rescinded by the notification dated 12th September, 1986, with effect from 15th Septembe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt period, i.e., from 20th May, 1986 to 15th September, 1986. His reasoning was that by passage of time, the prices of the material had gone up and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the manufacturing cost of the tractor could go down. This is how the exemption claimed by the assessee for the aforesaid period was refused. The appellate authority agreed with the assessing officer. The Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue. No dealer can be forced to charge higher price and to make profit always. Normally no dealer will sell the goods at a lesser price incurring huge loss. But in this case, there is no evidence on behalf of the Revenue that in fact, the tractors were sold at a higher price and the invoices were given of a lesser price. Rather, the assessing officer himself concluded that the price of accessories....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is no question of selling the tractors at a lesser price during the months of May to September, 1986. This argument has to be rejected outright, because the manufacturing cost of the tractor might go up, but the seller is free to sell his commodity at any price, he likes. The case of the assessing officer is that the real price of the tractor was not shown but under a well-set design, the price ....