9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that actually trade discount was given only at the rate of 22.5% and no cash discount had been given and requiring the respondent to show cause why deduction of trade discount should not be limited to 22.5% and why deduction of cash discount should not be disallowed. Respondent resisted the notices. Assistant Collector passed two separate orders dated 2-5-1987 and 10-8-1987 respectively agreeing that cash discount was allowable but restricting trade discount to 22.5%. The manufacturer filed two separate appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who disposed of the same by a common order dated 13-4-1988 allowing deduction of trade discount at 30% and allowing the appeals. The Collector of Central Excise has filed this appeal against the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR supporting the conclusions of the Assistant Collector placed reliance on the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Patel Detergents - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 546 (Tribunal). That was a case not of a wholesaler getting a part of the trade discount in regard to goods despatched directly of sub-dealers but was a case of commission paid to consignee distributors who are nothing but selling agents, pure and simple. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. - [1984] (17) E.L.T. 607 held that the kind of commission paid to the consignee-distributors was not deductible. Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. case also dealt with a case of commission paid to selling agent. 4. According to learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that discount of 3% out of the 29% discount declared in the price list as payable to wholesalers in regard to sales to dealers, sub-dealers within the jurisdiction of respective wholesalers, has to be allowed as trade discount. The decision proceeds on the basis that sales were actually to the wholesalers but for the purpose of convenience and other commercial reasons, the sales were effected directly to sub-dealers and this would not alter the application of the principle to the facts of the case. 5. The facts of the present case are more of less similar to the facts of the case in Electrical Products Corporation and Stallion Shox Ltd. and are quite similar to the facts in Patel Detergents. Applying the principles of the two decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
