9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning ones. Collector (Appeals) vide his impugned Order confirmed the Order of the Assistant Collector. The issues in the present appeals referred to the disallowed deductions on account of the following claims. Cash discount3. Cash discount @ 1.5% before 1-4-1984 and @ 2.1% after 1-4-1984 has been limited by the authorities below to the extent it was actually availed by the buyers of the appellant Company. The appellant had claimed the said deduction from their assessable value on the ground that the said discount was available to all the eligible wholesale buyers who paid the price in advance or on presentation of the bills. The same was made known to the buyers before removal of the goods and was being allowed as a matter of trade practice and for receiving prompt payment from their customers. 3.2.Shri Bagaria, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that Cash Discount is an allowable deduction and liable to be allowed at the rate prevailing during the period concerned for determination of assessable value of all clearances irrespective of whether the buyer concerned had availed the said discount or not. He submitted that the said position is now well-settled an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note of in the subsequent decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Mineral Products Company (P) Ltd. We find that the earlier judgments were directly on the issue involved and are detailed judgments. 3.4We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.E.D. v. Devaki Anmol reported in 1995 (212) ITR 395 has observed as under :- "We are at a loss to understand how, once one Division Bench of a High Court has held a particular provision of law to be constitutional and not violative of article 14, it is open to another Division Bench to hold that the same provision of law is unconstitutional and violative of article 14. Judicial discipline demands that one Division Bench of a High Court should ordinarily follow the judgment of another Division Bench of that High Court. In extraordinary cases, where the latter Division Bench finds it difficult, for stated reasons, to follow the earlier Division Bench judgment, the proper course is to order that the papers be placed before the Ld. Chief Justice of the High Court for constituting a Larger Bench. Certainly, where one Division Bench has held a statutory provision to be constitutional it is not open to another Division Bench to hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court and reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. In terms of the said judgment, interest on receivables is an allowable deductions. The appellants have also relied upon the following decisions and judgments : (i) 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 (Supreme Court) - VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (ii) 2000 (117) E.L.T. 774 (T) = 1998 (26) RLT 236 CEGAT - Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE (iii) 1998 (26) RLT 237-CEGAT - Rajasthan Explosives Chemicals v. CCE (iv) 1998 (26) RLT 362-CEGAT - CCE v. Somany Pilkingstones Ltd. (v) 1998 (26) RLT 527-CEGAT - Gramophone Company of India v. CCE 4.2As the issue is no more res integra and is settled by the various decisions referred (supra), we accept the appellants' claim on this deduction also. Special discount5. The claim on account of this discount relates only to the period of 1987-88. The prices were reduced by the appellant on account of huge accumulation of stock of various varieties at their factory. This special discount @ 6% was available to all wholesale buyers in respect of the said accumulated stock. The same has been disallowed on the ground that the reason behind such lowered and discoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. (ii) In the form of Rolls-Rolls of Cellophane are wrapped with thick kraft paper and both the sides are tightened by using corrugated paper (hard) rings. The appellants contend that the goods packed in the above manner are in a full marketable stage. For the safety of the goods during transportation, the reams/rolls duly packed as aforesaid are further packed in wooden boxes. It is the contention of the appellant that the cost of these wooden boxes is not to be added in the assessable value of the final product in as much as the same is for the facility of transportation and for safety of goods during transportation. They submitted that even though such type of wooden boxes are being used in relation to its entire clearances, it cannot be held that the same is necessary for putting the goods in marketable condition. In support of their above submission they have relied upon the following cases :- (i) 1997 (93) E.L.T. 633-CEGAT - (Bradma of India Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay) (ii) 1992 (61) E.L.T. 328 - Supreme Court (Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. UOI) (iii) 1996 (87) E.L.T. 335-Supreme Court (Lucky Biscuits Co. v. CCE, Patna) (iv) 1992 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of opinion between the Benches of the Bombay High Court. 11.This is evident from citations of both the sides. It is noteworthy that in the case of R.R. Paints - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 478, the Tribunal had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.); and the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Mineral Product Company Ltd. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) supports the view taken therein by the Tribunal. 12.The Bombay High Court had taken different view in the earlier cases namely those of Jenson Nicholson (I) Ltd. - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 4 and Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 186. However, the Bombay High Court, has in the later case of Hindustan Mineral Product Company Ltd., taken a different view in its judgment and it is not for us to question the wisdom of that judgment; and in view of the Larger Bench order in case of Atma Steel - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal), the matter was required to be referred to a Larger Bench. 13.Again, insofar as the Tribunal's earlier order is concerned apart from the fact that it relies upon the Supreme Court judgment and the Bombay High Court judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench on the issue of deduction of Cash Discount, as observed by the Hon'ble Vice-President." 17.Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate, assisted by Shri C.M. Ghorawat, ld. Advocate, submits that the issue that cash discount is an allowable deduction for determination of assessable value of all clearances irrespective of whether all the buyers availed the said discount or not is already well settled by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, different Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Tribunal. The ld. Advocate points out that in the case of Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited v Collector of Central Excise : 1988 (34) E.L.T. 373, the Tribunal held that case discount is liable to be deducted irrespective of whether each customer availed it or not. In that case, the Revenue's Civil Appeal was "dismissed" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15-7-1997, relying on their own judgments in U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyre International Pvt. Ltd., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) and G.O.I. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). A reference to this judgment was made by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. H R Johnson (India) Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 which itself was recalled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 703 and none of the earlier binding decisions on the said issue as given by the Hon'ble Bombay and Madras High Court were even considered in the said decision. The ld. Advocate further submits that another decision referred by the ld. Vice-President as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 23 (Hindustan Mineral Products Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I.), was given without taking note of the earlier binding judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court itself on the said issue. In fact the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 186 was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. None of the said earlier judgments were taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Vice-President. He pleads that as the issue has now been well-settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited, there can be no scope to take any different view in the matter. He finally submits that in view of the above legal position, deduction of cash discount be allowed as held by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial). 18.Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
