9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. Assistant Collector passed separate orders disallowing the claim for deduction of discount. Collector (Appeals) reversed these orders and allowed deduction of discount. These orders are now challenged by the department. 3. Sales by the respondent are to wholesalers, who in turn, effect sales to retailers who include railway canteens and other canteens like Airport canteens, Cinema Theatre canteens and the like. In respect of each period respondent had filed 3 sets of price lists, one price list without any claim for deduction, another price list claiming deduction of trade discount at a particular rate and the third price list claiming deduction of trade discount at a higher rate. Apparently, the three price lists relate to goods sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorised to effect sales only to approved canteens and in fact wholesalers had sold the goods to non-approved canteens also. 5. The contention that since the exact quantum of discount payable was not known before removal of the goods, the discount cannot be allowed is not sustainable. The orders passed by the appellate authority make it clear that this was the particular trade practice being followed by respondent and respondent s wholesalers. The price lists themselves indicate the rate of discount available under each price list. Therefore, the rate of discount must be taken to be known to the trade before removal. 6. It is true that at the time of clearance by the manufacturer in favour of the wholesalers, the exact amount of disco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also in a position to accept the contention that wholesalers affected sales in favour of non-approved canteens and therefore, goods covered by either were outside the scheme of trade discount. Neither the order of the Assistant Collector nor that of the Collector (Appeals) refer to the circumstance that the discount would be available only if sales were made in favour of approved canteens. Even assuming that there was such a condition, there is no case specifically propounded till now that there were sales to canteens other than non-approved canteens or that the respondent was claiming discount in respect of goods sold to non-approved canteens. 9. For the reasons indicated above we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
