P.M.P. Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

P.M.P. Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 30, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30754

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/30754
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Apr 30, 2003
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.M.P. Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the appellants have come in the appeal against the following two findings arrived by the lower authorities:- (a) the whole sale dealers can not be considered as belonging to different classes of buyers when they are located in different towns or cities and different discounts are not permissible to be deducted to arrive at the assessable value for excise purposes relying upon board circular no. 24/14/93 dated 31.12.93. (b) the price list filed for reduction in prices for the subsequent year were dismissed on the ground that there was no reason for the reduction in prices.2. as regards the issue at serial no. (a) above the matter is now well settled, in the case of indian rayon & industries ltd. v. union of india -- 1994 (73) e.l.t.25 (del). the order of delhi high court, in appeal filed by the union of india was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. while dismissing the appeal, the supreme court passed the following order. "it is fairly stated that the civil appeals must be dismissed, being covered against the revenue by the judgment of this court in goi v. madras rubber factory ltd. (77 elt 433)." 3. the rejection of the discounts as claimed cannot be upheld. as regards the issue at (b) above, the appellant to reduce the prices, we find no provisions in the central excise law to upheld the findings of the lower authorities or a ban in reducing the price, list in the subsequent years declarations. nor any provision shown to us or found in the impugned order. there is no finding that the prices declared are not the normal price, section 4(1) (a) of the central excise act, 1944 and has not been found to be violated. the order is therefore required to be set aside.4. in view of our findings, we set aside the order passed by the lower authorities and allow the appeal as the consequent relief, if any, as per law.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants have come in the appeal against the following two findings arrived by the lower authorities:- (a) The whole sale dealers can not be considered as belonging to different classes of buyers when they are located in different towns or cities and different discounts are not permissible to be deducted to arrive at the assessable value for excise purposes relying upon Board Circular No. 24/14/93 dated 31.12.93.

(b) The price list filed for reduction in prices for the subsequent year were dismissed on the ground that there was no reason for the reduction in prices.

2. As regards the issue at Serial No. (a) above the matter is now well settled, in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India -- 1994 (73) E.L.T.25 (Del). The Order of Delhi High Court, in appeal filed by the Union of India was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order.

"It is fairly stated that the Civil Appeals must be dismissed, being covered against the Revenue by the Judgment of this Court in GOI v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (77 ELT 433)." 3. The rejection of the discounts as claimed cannot be upheld. As regards the issue at (b) above, the appellant to reduce the prices, we find no provisions in the Central Excise Law to upheld the findings of the lower authorities or a ban in reducing the price, list in the subsequent years declarations. Nor any provision shown to us or found in the impugned order. There is no finding that the prices declared are not the normal price, Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and has not been found to be violated. The order is therefore required to be set aside.

4. In view of our findings, we set aside the Order passed by the lower authorities and allow the appeal as the consequent relief, if any, as per law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties P.M.P. Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.