1994 (3) TMI 102 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Additional trade discount (turnover discount)
2. Cash discount
3. Regular prompt payment discount
4. Other dealer discount
5. Agency commission
6. Transit insurance

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Additional Trade Discount (Turnover Discount):
The petitioners claimed a 3% additional trade discount granted to dealers subsequent to the removal of goods by way of credit notes. The Assistant Collector denied this deduction, stating that such discounts could not be ascertained at or prior to the removal of goods, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Tyres International Ltd. The petitioners failed to produce evidence to substantiate this claim, despite being given ample opportunities. The court declined to remit the matter back for further evidence or to allow the petitioners to produce evidence in court, emphasizing that the petitioners had deliberately not availed themselves of the opportunities provided. The court upheld the Assistant Collector's refusal to grant this discount.

2. Cash Discount:
The Assistant Collector allowed a 5% cash discount only when it had been actually availed of. The petitioners argued that this discount should be given across the board, regardless of whether it was availed of or not. The court found no fault with the Assistant Collector's decision, affirming that cash discounts should only be granted when actually utilized.

3. Regular Prompt Payment Discount:
The petitioners claimed a 3% regular prompt payment discount at the year-end on the entire turnover of the dealer, less the turnover covered under cash discount. This claim was based on a circular that was not produced before the Assistant Collector. The court noted that similar claims by M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. had been disallowed by the Collector of Appeals due to lack of evidence. The court upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, citing the petitioners' failure to provide necessary evidence.

4. Other Dealer Discount:
The petitioners sought various discounts under this heading, including scheme, bonus, overriding commission, and special deal and special discount. The Assistant Collector denied these discounts due to the petitioners' failure to provide a detailed break-up or supporting material. The court noted that the petitioners did not produce necessary circulars or evidence to substantiate their claims. The court upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, finding no error in the denial of these discounts.

5. Agency Commission:
The petitioners did not press their claim for deductions under the heading of agency commission, and thus this issue was not further considered.

6. Transit Insurance:
The petitioners claimed a discount of 0.01% for transit insurance based on net sales of the entire range of products sold by M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. The Assistant Collector disallowed this claim due to the petitioners' failure to produce the insurance policy or any evidence identifying the product 'Gattu Cement Coating'. The court noted that M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. had produced material to support their claim, while the petitioners had not. The court upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to provide documentary evidence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule with costs, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims and upholding the Assistant Collector's decisions on all counts. The court also noted that the petitioners' attempt to introduce new grounds based on a different Supreme Court decision was abandoned when it was clarified that such a move would invalidate the challenge to the Assistant Collector's order.