1983 (2) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer, for the Respondent. ORDER The case was argued before us on 17-2-1983. The appellants manufacture scooters for which they obtain duty-paid power pack (engine) from M/s Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow. Exemption Notification No. 21/77-CE permitted them set off of duty of excise already paid on the engines fitted to their scooters. By virtue of another exemption Notificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants presented an illustration of the two calculation methods which we reproduce below to facilitate easier understanding of the problem :- Urged by the Appellants Followed by the Department Duty rate 12-1/2% Duty rate 12-1/2% Incentive 25% Duty on value of   Rate leviable 9.375% Rs. 4,000 per scooter Rs. 500.00 Gross duty payable for _....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and there was no justification to apply the latter notification first before applying the former notification. 3.  On behalf of the Department, Shri Raghavan Iyer laid stress on the wording of Notification No. 198/76-CE the relevant portion from which has already been extracted in para 1 above. He stated that the language used in this notification made it incumbent that the incentive shoul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acturer of scooters following proforma credit procedure got a higher amount of incentive under Notification No. 198/76-CE but as between two manufacturers working under the same pattern, whether set off or proforma credit, there was no discrimination. The appellants too could have chosen to follow the proforma credit procedure but they did not do so. There was no discrimination against them vis-a-....