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 2, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Banco Polytubes Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 25 June, 2013

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.

Principal Bench, New Delhi



COURT NO. II



DATE OF HEARING : 25/06/13.



Excise Appeal No. 429 of 2005



[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 625/CE/BPL/2004 dated 19/08/2004 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Bhopal.]



M/s Banco Polytubes Pvt. Ltd.                                               Appellant                                   



	Versus



CCE, Bhopal                                                                    Respondent



Appearance



Ms. Rashi, Advocate  for the appellant.



Mrs. Shweta Bector, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the Respondent.





CORAM:   Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member 

       Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 

       

       

       Final Order No.    56832/2013 Dated : 25/06/2013



ORDER

Per. D.N. Panda :-

Learned counsel submits that the discount was given appropriately for which the assessable value should have been reduced for the amount of discount. She also be says that there is no evidence to deny the benefit claimed.

2. Revenue supports the adjudication.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The last para of the adjudication order is more relevant where learned Adjudicating Authority has upon examination of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the appellant had never disclosed the pattern of discount to the Department which has proved evasion of the duty. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also found out that appellant has neither given the discount to all buyers nor the discount was known to buyers. When the discount is not known to the buyers, the appellant shall not get any deduction of the same from the assessable value.

5. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 397 (Guj.) and also in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. vs. CCE, Madras reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.).

6. We do not find that the present case of the appellant is like case of Metal Box India Ltd. (supra) for the peculiar circumstances of a different class of buyers involved in that appeal. Similarly, the judgment of Honble High Court of Gujarat is not profitable to the appellant for the reasons recorded by the learned Adjudicating Authority as to the non-disclosure of the discount to the buyers. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK ??

??

??

??

2

EX/429 of 2005