2015 (10) TMI 2396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nafter referred as RMPL) is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. RFI are the manufacturer of fans and during the period January 1986 to August, 1987, 95% of their production was sold to their selling distributor i.e. M/s. P D Vyas & Co. (in short PDV). Some remaining sales were effected by the appellant direct to the customers through M/s. PDV for which certain commissions were given to M/s. PDV. The commission given to M/s. PDV was deducted from the assessable value. Revenue is of the view that commission given to M/s. PDV is includable in the assessable value and the amount of discounts given to M/s. PDV being sold ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and also M/s. PDV was commission agent to the appellant. It was observed by this Tribunal that these two assertions cannot be simultaneously possible. Thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed wherein the demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), he held that the adjudicating authority has misread the contract and has erred in coming to the conclusion that M/s. PDV was commission agent of the appellant. Therefore, he held that whatever goods sold by the appellants to M/s. PDV as sole distributor, the price charged after discount is the assessable value but for the goods directly sold to the buyers and wherein commission was paid to M/s. PDV, learned Commissioner (Appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l person, therefore, the penalty is not imposable. 7. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 9. In this case, the short issue arose from the facts of the case is that for the period prior to 1.7.2000 when the price on which the goods are generally sold is the correct assessable value or not. The said issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Elgi Equipments Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "10. At the outset, it may be stated that in this case, we are concerned with the law as it stood before 2000. At that time, assessable value was equated to normal price which was the wholesale price at the factory gat....