9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent of both sides. 2. Appellant before us is a well-known manufacturer of paints, varnishes, thinners etc. falling under Chapters 32 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the price declarations filed from time to time the appellant has claimed deductions of cash discount at 5% whereas in actual point of fact cash discount was not passed on to all its customers. This has resulted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,12,625/-. An appeal was filed to Commissioner (Appeals) who by the impugned orders has held, after referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in a case of Jenson Nicholson (I) Ltd. v. UOI [1984 (17) E.L.T. 4 (Bom.)], where the price list has itself disclosed that a certain percentage was allowable discount, in cash, but in the present case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 186] which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. C/Nil/94 judgment dated 11-7-1994 where the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on merits reported in [1994 (73) E.L.T. A58 59]. The representative of the appellant further submitted the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. H R Johnson (India) Ltd. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 65] and Perfect Circle Victor Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bombay High Court in Goodlass Nerolac supra. Following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the contention raised by the appellant declaring that the cash discount of 5% claimed by them should be allowed as a deduction from the value of the goods for purposes of levy of excise duty. 6. Appeal allowed. Impugned older set aside. Consequential relief if any, in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
