1992 (6) TMI 100 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of regional discounts in invoices.
- Allegation of not passing discounts to buyers.
- Requirement to exhibit discounts on invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an Order-in-Original by the Assistant Collector regarding the disallowance of regional discounts in invoices for PVC Resin manufactured by the appellants. The Assistant Collector alleged that regional discounts were not passed on to customers and demanded a differential duty. The appellants argued that the discounts were approved and known to customers, and it was unnecessary to exhibit them on invoices. During the hearing, the appellants contended that there was no evidence of non-passing of discounts to customers or diversion of goods. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Tyres International, stating that showing discounts on invoices was not mandatory.

Upon examination, the Commissioner found that regional discounts were approved by the department and shown on approved price lists. The disallowance was solely based on discounts not being exhibited in invoices and the presumption of non-passing of discounts to buyers. The Commissioner noted the lack of evidence supporting these allegations and that the appellants had raised invoices based on approved values. Referring to the Bombay Tyres International case, the Commissioner concluded that not showing discounts on invoices did not render them inadmissible. The judgment in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. further supported this view.

The Commissioner held that the disallowance of regional discounts due to non-indication on invoices and alleged non-passing to customers was incorrect and unsustainable. Since the department did not claim the discounts were inadmissible, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. The decision was based on incorrect legal grounds, lack of evidence, and incorrect facts presented by the department.