9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is the eligibility to discount from the assessable value of paints and varnishes that the appellant manufactured. 2. We have heard Mr. A. Fernandes, manager of the appellant, and the departmental representative. 3. Among the four discounts under consideration, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have any written material which lays out the parameters prescribed by each manager to qualify for the year end bonus. He also states that no such material has been produced before the adjudicating or the appellate authority. 4. In this situation, we do not find it possible to say that such a discount qualifies for deduction. The requirement that the discount that it must be uniform and also tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... schemes, according to him, covers the scheme in question. There are no dictated parameters laid down in the circular. All that it says is that the schemes are usual for a period of one month. The monthly strategy and pattern are decided in advance at the planning meets and recorded in the planning document of the branch. It is further stated that the schemes are announced in advance and uniformly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t find it possible to conclude that it was allowed as a reduction. 7. The appellant relies upon Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. UOI - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 186. Paragraph 5 of the judgment refers to bonus discount and paragraph 6 to additional product rebate. In the absence of the details of the scheme, it is not possible to say that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
