TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the appellant, manufacturer of soaps and detergents, during the period 1988 to 1994. Assistant Collector rejected the claim made in the price lists for abatement on several counts. His order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the assessee has filed the present appeal. We have heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant made four submissions before us. They relate to (i) discount for damage in transit, (ii) bank charges for realisation of sale proceeds, (iii) HDPE bags (secondary packing) and (iv) order in respect of supplies to Canteen Store Department, Ministry of Defence, in respect of which abatements have been claimed and the claims rejected. Appellant had offered to give discount for damage to goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cates that bank charges were in respect of realisation of sale proceeds. In the appellant s own case reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 720 (Tribunal) = 1996 (12) RLT 619 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that bank charges in respect of collection of sale proceeds would be admissible for abatement. The facts will have to be verified by the jurisdictional authority. 5. In regard to HDPE bags used as secondary packing, the averment in the show cause notice was that such packing was necessary to be used for sale in wholesale at the factory gate and, therefore, the cost thereof was includible. The averment was denied in the reply to the show cause notice. The reply, however, did not contain an averment that the HDPE bags were durable in nature and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been examined in this light, it deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority. 6. The last contention urged is that the Assistant Collector was in error in rejecting the deductions claimed in respect of the goods supplied to Canteen Store Department, Ministry of Finance under a contract. The show cause notice makes it clear that it relates only to price lists in Part I. There is no doubt that in respect of goods proposed to sold to Canteen Store Department, Ministry of Defence, appellant had filed price list in Part II. The show cause notice did not purport to deal with price list in Part II. For this simple reason the impugned orders to the extent they relate to abatement in respect of goods supplied to Canteen Store Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
