1996 (3) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a trade discount higher than normal given to one bulk buyer under contract is admissible for deduction.
2. Whether transportation costs from the factory gate to the depot are eligible for deduction.
3. Whether the cost of wooden packing used, in the absence of factory gate sales, is eligible for deduction from the declared price.

Analysis:
1. Trade Discount:
The appellant, M/s. Shriram Bearings Limited, claimed a trade discount of 35.77% for one bulk buyer, higher than the normal 30% discount. However, the claim was rejected as no supporting particulars were provided. The Learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the normal 30% trade discount, stating that the appellant failed to substantiate the higher discount claim. The appellate tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the claim.

2. Transportation Costs:
Regarding transportation costs, the tribunal acknowledged that transportation expenses from the factory to the delivery location could be deducted if there were no sales at the factory gate. The appellant failed to provide specific figures for transportation costs related to ball bearings. Despite agreeing in principle that transportation costs are deductible, the tribunal upheld the Collector's decision due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary details even after a significant delay.

3. Cost of Wooden Packing:
The appellant argued that the cost of wooden packing, used for safe transport of ball bearings, should be excluded from the declared price. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the tribunal agreed that wooden crate packing, essential for protecting the products during transportation, should be considered for deduction. The tribunal distinguished a previous case involving corrugated cartons and ruled in favor of excluding the cost of wooden crates from the declared price.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the Collector's decision on trade discount and transportation costs due to the appellant's failure to substantiate their claims adequately. However, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the exclusion of the cost of wooden packing from the declared price. As a result, the appeal was allowed partially, with the decision varying on different issues based on the evidence and legal precedents presented.