2000 (4) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s called out, the appellants were not present in spite of notice. On the last two occasions also they were not present or represented. We therefore proceed to decide this issue on merits. 2. The appellants manufactured goods fall­ing under Chapters 32 and 33 of the CETA. Various price lists were approved provisional­ly permitting reductions on account of discounts etc. subject to the cert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ash or in kind. In later judgment the Tribunal has made one distinction between the discount given in kind of the goods manufactured by the assessees and those goods not so manufactured. The Tribunal in the case of Glaxo (I) Ltd. v. CCE [1995 (76) E.L.T. 451] held that the gifts other than the articles manufactured by the assessees were sale promotion incentives and not trade discounts and thus no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and also that he has misinterpreted the Circular. 6. We have seen the circulars. We have also seen the certificates given by the chartered accountants which show total quantity of discounts for tooth paste at 3.41%. In the display circulars issued from time to time the discount given is 4.35% to 5.88%. This in fact amounts to quantity discount and has been given uniformly to its dealers. As rega .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X