2002 (1) TMI 713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The respondents herein are manufacturing Paper and Paper Board. They were clearing their excisable goods on payment of duty after allowing special discount and weight difference discount to their customers. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 3-1-96 confirmed the demand of Rs. 60,369/- holding that discount was allowable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods from the factory. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has held, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International, 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) that there is no evidence led in by the department to show that special discount claimed to be given by the respondent on account of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the parameters laid down in this aspects in the Bombay Tyre International case. We find that he has considered the above judgment and his findings based on the judgment are not challenged in the appeal memorandum. Hence, we see no substance in the appeal of the Revenue. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X