9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Advocates for the Appellants. Shri Mahesh Kumar, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 25th August, 1976. Originally it was preferred as a revision application before the Central Government but on transfer to this Tribunal, the same is being disposed of as an appeal. 2. At the relevant time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough it had been described in the price-list as dealers coverage. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Supreme Court has held vide its recent judgment [1983 E.L.T. 1896 (SC)] read with Court's clarificatory order dated November 14/15, 1983 that discount allowed in the trade, by whatever name this discount is described, should be allowed to be deducted from the sale p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative for the respondent, drew our attention to the Supreme Court judgment (supra) wherein in paragraph 49, their lordships have given a clear finding that expenses incurred for after-sales service cannot be allowed to be deducted from the selling price for arriving at the assessable value of the goods. Since the appellants had taken a clear stand before the lower authorities that ₹ 300/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpression 'trade discount'. It is true that the Court has held that discount allowed in the trade should be allowed by whatever name such discount is described. However, this finding has been further elaborated by the Court and for this purpose, we reproduce below the relevant portion of the judgment :- "Discount allowed in the Trade (by whatever name such discount is described) should be allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
