1990 (2) TMI 52 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the discount allowed to the Indentors in respect of some of the sales might have been described as service charge discount that name could not govern the real nature of the transaction and the discount was really a trade discount? Held that - No case has ever been made out right upto the Tribunal and even before the Tribunal that in respect of any particular invoice although the name of the purchaser was other than that of the Indentor it was really the Indentor who was the purchaser and he in turn has solds the goods to the third party whose name was shown as purchaser or even that the Indentor had entered into the transaction as the agent of the purchaser. If such a contention had been raised the factual position could have been examined and different considerations might have been applied. But it is certainly not open to the appellant to raise this contention at this stage in this appeal particularly keeping in mind that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of trade discount and service charge discount for excise duty valuation.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the assessee regarding the valuation of excisable goods under the Central Excises Act. The appellant, a public limited company manufacturing paper and paperboards, claimed deductions for trade discount and service charge discount in the valuation of goods for excise duty purposes. The appellant engaged dealers referred to as "Indentors" to promote sales, and discounts were given to them. The appellant argued that discounts given should be considered as trade discounts eligible for deduction in excise duty valuation. The Court referred to precedents stating that only normal trade discounts to purchasers qualify for deduction, not commissions to selling agents. The Court noted that where Indentors were shown as purchasers in invoices, trade discounts were allowed as deductions. The appellant raised a contention that even if purchasers were different from Indentors in some cases, the real transaction was Indentors purchasing and reselling. However, the Court held that such contentions should have been raised earlier for factual examination and cannot be raised at the appeal stage. The Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that if the purchaser named in the invoice is the same as the Indentor, normal trade discount to the Indentor would be allowed as a deduction in excise duty valuation.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the valuation method for excise duty, emphasizing that only normal trade discounts to purchasers qualify for deduction. The Court dismissed the appeal but clarified that if the purchaser named in the invoice is the same as the Indentor, the trade discount to the Indentor would be allowed as a deduction in excise duty valuation. The appellant was directed to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent.