2018 (11) TMI 1669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RP based assessment in accordance with Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Alleging that they are required to pay Central Excise duty on the transaction value as per Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, demand notice was issued on 05.10.2001 for recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 8,78,368/- for the period from September 2000 to August 2001. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed second appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, observing that the goods are liable to be assessed in accordance with Section 4(1)(a) of Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....support, he has referred to the judgment of this Triubunal in the case of CCE Ahmedabad-III Vs Arvind Ltd - 2006 (204) ELT 570 (Tri-LB), Purolator India Ltd Vs CCE Delhi-III - 2015 (323) ELT 227 (SC), Nirlon Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai-V - 2005 (190) ELT 334 (Tri-Mum). 4. Per contra, the learned A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), analysising the declaration filed under sub-Rule (3A) of Rule 173 C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, regarding the pricing pattern adopted by the Appellant observed that they were allowing the over-riding commission to the dealer, if any orders were received by them through the efforts of such dealers. The said commission is included in the price, which means that the buyers/ cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndel Fertilizers' case (supra). The said principle is followed by the Tribunal in Deekens Polyester case as under:- 4. The second disputed issue relates to as to whether the brokerage offered to the agents who procured the orders for the appellants are required to be added in the assessable value or not. The appellant have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Nirlon Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-V [2005 (190) E.L.T. 334 (Tri. - Mum.)], in support of their contention that brokerage to intending agents is a permissible deduction. On the other hand, ld. DR relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. UOI & others [1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.)] holding that the commission paid to....