SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

P.C.JAIN, S.V.MARUTHI
Auto Control (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S. Sunder Rajan,Satish Kumar

ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. Since common issues are involved, a common order is being passed.

1.1 The appellant herein filed a Price List No. 472/P/86-87 w.e.f. 26-3-1987 claiming certain deductions in the price list. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice in respect of the various items of deductions claimed proposing to disallow them and also setting forth the reasons as to why these were not permissible. Deductions claimed are as follows :

(i) Payment of Central Excise duty @ 10% ad valorem claiming deduction of duty @ 20% from the prices at which the goods have been sold to the buyers.

(ii) Wooden packing charges.

(iii) Deductions on account of certain accessories, such as Daizy Wheel, Carbon Ribbon and Correction Tape.

(iv) Installation and training charges.

(v) Freight on ah average basis.

1.2 The Assistant Collector after due adjudication in his order-in-original No. 12/AC/VAL/CH/87, dated 2-11-1987 has held as follows in respect of the various deductions as mentioned above :-

(I) Deduction at the rate of 10% of duty actually paid or payable to the department is only permissible. Deduction at the, rate of 20% is not permissible.

(II) It has been held that Wooden packing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top