Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

C.C.E. & Customs, Aurangabad vs M/S. Ador Welding Ltd. on 13 August, 2015

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2006

                   COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
                   AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD                                           ... Appellant

                                                         VERSUS

                   M/S. ADOR WELDING LTD.                                            ... Respondent


                                                        O R D E R

The respondent herein was supplying goods to one M/s.Ador Fontech Limited giving 45 per cent trade discount. However, without any quarrel on this aspect, show cause notice was served upon the respondent raising another dispute, which pertained to extra trade discount of 10 per cent. It was also alleged that the respondent and the said purchaser were related persons.

The demand in the show cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 25.06.2003. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which, vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal preferred. CESTAT has found that the respondent and the purchaser, to whom the supplies were made, are not related persons. In respect of extra trade discount of 10 per cent, the explanation given Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.09.17 17:40:53 IST Reason: by the respondent stating that this additional 10 per cent includes an amount for holding seminars, publicity and C.A. No.1605/2006 1 marketing, has been accepted.

These are pure finding of facts and no substantial question of law is involved. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.

......................, J.

[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................, J.

[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;

August 13, 2015.





C.A. No.1605/2006                   2
                                                           (CORRECTED COPY)

ITEM NO.105                     COURT NO.13                 SECTION III

                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No. 1605/2006

C.C.E. & CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD                               Appellant(s)

                                      VERSUS

M/S. ADOR WELDING LTD.                                     Respondent(s)

(With office report)

Date : 13/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv.
Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mr. Daniel George, Adv.
Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
       (Nidhi Ahuja)                                (Suman Jain)
       COURT MASTER                                 COURT MASTER

[Signed order is placed on the file.] C.A. No.1605/2006 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD ... Appellant VERSUS M/S. ADOR WELDING LTD. ... Respondent O R D E R The respondent herein was supplying goods to one M/s.Ador Fontech Limited giving 45 per cent trade discount. However, without any quarrel on this aspect, show cause notice was served upon the respondent raising another dispute, which pertained to extra trade discount of 10 per cent. It was also alleged that the respondent and the said purchaser were related persons.
The demand in the show cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.06.2003. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which, vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal preferred. CESTAT has found that the respondent and the purchaser, to whom the supplies were made, are not related persons. In respect of extra trade discount of 10 per cent, the explanation given by the respondent stating that this additional 10 per cent includes an amount for holding seminars, publicity and C.A. No.1605/2006 4 marketing, has been accepted.
These are pure finding of facts and no substantial question of law is involved. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.
......................, J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................, J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
August 13, 2015.




C.A. No.1605/2006                   5
ITEM NO.105                     COURT NO.13                 SECTION III

                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No. 1605/2006

C.C.E. & CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD                               Appellant(s)

                                      VERSUS

M/S. ADOR WELDING LTD.                                     Respondent(s)

(With office report)

Date : 13/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mr. Daniel George, Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
       (Nidhi Ahuja)                                (Suman Jain)
       COURT MASTER                                 COURT MASTER

[Signed order is placed on the file.] C.A. No.1605/2006 6