2004 (6) TMI 515 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of trade discount as commission paid to commission agents.
2. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(d) of Central Excise Act.
3. Remand for determining the amount of commission not deductible as trade discount.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of trade discount as commission paid to commission agents. The Revenue contended that the respondents, manufacturers of tubes for tyres, were not passing on the trade discount claimed by them in full to customers, as it was actually the commission paid to their agents. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 96,300, but the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal, classifying the agents as wholesale dealers rather than commission agents.

The key argument presented was that the commission paid to the agents should not be considered as trade discount under Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act. Citing precedents, it was highlighted that commissions paid to agents for procuring orders are not deductible as trade discounts. The Supreme Court's decision in Coromondel Fertilizers Ltd. v. UOI was referenced to support this stance.

In response, the advocate for the respondents argued that the agents also purchased goods from the respondents for selling to customers, not just procuring orders. Therefore, it was suggested that a distinction should be made based on whether the agents purchased goods or solely procured orders. Consequently, a request was made to remand the case for further examination on this point.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the request for a remand. The Tribunal directed the case to be sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine the specific instances where the agents had only procured orders without purchasing goods. In such cases, the commission paid to the agents would not be deductible as trade discount from the assessable value. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a detailed assessment of the commission amount not eligible for deduction as trade discount.