9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has filed three appeals against Order-in-Appeal No.195/2004 dated 4.1.2005. Both assessee as well as Revenue have filed appeals against impugned orders No.119/2004; 120/2004 and 121/2004 all dated 30.6.2004. Since the issues in all these appeals are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2.1 The first issue pertains to the Revenue which is in appeal on the issue of grant of trade discount. The pattern of sales of the assessee is that, from the factory, the goods are initially sent to their depots and thereafter, from the depots, the goods are cleared to stocksts with 18.5% trade discount. The sub-stockists were given a discount of only 16%. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has held that the trade disco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s settled law that the discounts by any name are allowable as abatement subject to the condition that it is known prior to the clearance of the goods. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (A) has examined the question of differential discount at 18.5% to stockists as well as 16% in the case of sub-stockists. His findings are reproduced below: "Since this issue relates to valuation and also is arising after the introduction of new Section 4, we have to go strictly in terms of new Section 4 for deciding the issue. It is seen from the facts of the case that the transaction relating to the present case are from the depots and not from the factory gate, when there are no factory sales, Section 4(1)(a) is ruled out. Therefore, we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are allowed actual discount of 18.5% as per the law the party is entitled to claim 18.% for all its clearances irrespective of the fact that the actual discount allowed to the sub-stockists is only 16%. The reliance of the department on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (153) ELT 263 (SC) is not correct as the case law pertains to a period prior to the introduction of the new Section 4. Even though the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise in his order has allowed 18.5% trade discount claimed by the party, his order lacks conceptual clarity." 4.1 On a careful consideration of the findings in the impugned order, we find that the same has been given in the light of the provisions of Section 4 and the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
