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

K.L.REKHI, HARISH CHANDER
Khaitan Fans (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.S. Aggarwal,S. Krishnamurthy

ORDER

K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. The prayer of the appellants in this appeal is that while determining the assessable value of their electric fans, commission, cost of wooden crate (special secondary packing) and cost of regulator should not be included.

2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter. We record our findings and order on each of the aforesaid three items.

(1) Commission

The appellants pay this commission to an agent for the services rendered by them in procuring orders from Government departments. The agent is not the actual buyer of the fans but is a third party. The commission pay to him is not in the nature of trade discount given to dealers or wholesale buyers. The appellants sought reliance on the Supreme Court judgment reported at MANU/SC/0190/1985 : 1986 (23) ELT 8(SC) - Moped India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore and Ors., paragraph 6. But we find from this judgment that it dealt with commission paid to dealers who were not agents of the assessee in that case. This judgment, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the appellants' case. The Supreme Court judgment which specifically applies to commission paid to an a

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