TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods cleared by distributors at the end of every financial year was not excludable from the disposable value of the goods. 2. Heard Shri M. Kunhikannan, learned DR who submits that even though the percentage of 2.5 is uniform, the actual discount allowed is not uniform to all dealers as it depends on the sales turnover and would be known only at the end of the financial year. He further submits that since this amount is given as recognition of the efforts taken by the dealers to promote sales, therefore, it is only an year ending bonus. On these two grounds he submits that Collector (Appeals) has erroneously applied the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International. Learned DR furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e financial year when the total value of goods bought from the respondent by each buyer was available to both sides. He submits that revenue has submitted that the quantum itself being variable, it amounts to a discount which was not known before it was given. This is not correct in view of the fact that the rate of discount was always known before hand and this is not disputed by revenue itself. (c) In this connection, he submits that law is now well established in this behalf and cites the following decisions: (i) Perfect Circle Victor Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 676 (S.C.). (ii) Union of India v. S.S.M. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 269 (Mad.). (iii) Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the goods from the factory gate. (b) The discount should be available uniformly to each known class of buyer. (c) The transactions between sale and purchase of goods should be at arms length. (d) There should be no flow back from the buyer to the seller on record. 9. Learned Collector (Appeals) has gone into the application of this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of the case on record before her. She has clearly analysed that the rate of discount of 2.5% was known as far back as 1986 by an amendment to a document which was available as terms and conditions for removal of goods from the factory. She has further noted that this 2.5% was available to each and every buyer and was, therefore, uniformly avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur case laws cited by the learned Advocate as noted above to the same effect. As against that we note that the decision in the case of S.S. Miranda relied upon by revenue was covering a situation where an incentive was given as a surprise package and nothing thereof was known to the buyers in advance or at the time of removal of goods. In view of the analysis above, these are not the facts in this case and hence this judgment stands distinguished. 12. We have also considered learned Advocates submission that the nature of this discount can never be regarded as bonus because a bonus arises out of sharing of profits made by the manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that the turnover discount was in any way related with me event o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|