Final Order No. 1435/98-A arising from in Appeal No. E/2509/93-A. Case: Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs Marigold Paints. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||Final Order No. 1435/98-A arising from in Appeal No. E/2509/93-A|
|Party Name:||Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs Marigold Paints|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Shri S.P. Rao, JDR.|
|Judges:||Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (T)|
|Issue:||Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 4|
|Judgement Date:||November 13, 1998|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J), (New Delhi)
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad by which he has held that the additional trade discount and secondary packing charges are permissible deductions from the assessable value of the paints and varnishes manufactured by the respondents herein.
Since the respondents have asked for a decision on merits, we heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR and perused the records.
We find that identical issues have been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Bee Pee Coating Ltd. (Final Order No. 739-740/95-A, dated 8-11-1995). In this order, the Tribunal has held that the question of deduction of additional trade discount (allowed by the principal to its dealers) is a question of fact depending entirely on the materials which the assessees place before the authorities concerned, either by way of records of the principal or by way of statements given by the principal to the assessees, and that the assessees are not entitled to deduction of whatever amount has been disbursed by the principal to its dealers by way of additional trade discount. The Tribunal has held that the assessees can legitimately claim deduction only to the extent actually granted by the principal to its dealers on account of sale of products supplied to it by the assessees. The Tribunal directed quantification based upon the materials to be placed...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL