9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the assessable value in terms of Notification 305/77, dated 5-11-1977. The appellants filed a price list claiming trade discount and also deduction for cost of secondary packing, etc. Price lists were provisionally approved deleting additional trade discount and based on volume of purchase by dealers of M/s. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.; deduction for cost of secondary packing was disallowed. Appeal preferred before the Collector (Appeals) was dismissed. It is against this order that appeal E/512/93-A has been filed for the period from March, 1988 to March, 89. After the expiry of the period, the Supdt. in the Department sent a letter to the appellants quantifying the differential excise duty and making demand for payment. That order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the additional trade discount was not genuine, but was disallowed only on one ground, namely, difficulty in arriving at additional trade discount granted by the principal to its dealers. The Tribunal has held difficulties of calculation cannot be a ground for disallowing deduction. See observations of Tribunal in Indian Explosives Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal). In any event, the possible difficulties in arriving at the actual amount of discount granted by way of credit note by the principal to its dealers, cannot be a ground for disallowing deduction claimed in the price list. The actual quantum is relevant only at the subsequent stage of quantification. Whether additional trade dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount depends on the value of purchases made by the dealers from the principal, which will include not only the products manufactured by the appellants, but also those manufactured by the principal. The appellants can legitimately claim deduction only to the extent of deduction actually granted by the principal to its dealers on account of sale of products supplied to it by the appellants. Quantification in this regard is dependant entirely on the materials the appellants place before the authority concerned. 4. In the price list, it is stated that the manufacturer, goods are sold in tins of varying volume, namely, 20 ltrs.; 4 ltrs.; 2 ltrs. and ltr. In the price list, deduction is claimed for the cost of secondary packing of 4 ltrs. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment made under Rule 173(1) which does not require a show cause notice. It is unnecessary for us to resolve this controversy in this appeal since we are modifying the impugned order in relation to the price list and allowing deduction in additional trade discount and secondary packing. Therefore, the amount claimed in the letter of demand by the Supdt. cannot any longer be regarded as the correct amount. It is for the Department to work out the amount afresh and intimate the same to the appellants. If there are any errors in the demand, it shall be open to the appellants to approach the authority concerned with appropriate submissions to which, no doubt, the authority will give due consideration before taking any final view in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
