2002 (1) TMI 713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri R. Parthsarthy, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The respondents herein are manufacturing Paper and Paper Board. They were clearing their excisable goods on payment of duty after allowing special discount and weight difference discount to their customers. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 3-1-96 confirmed the demand of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat these were not known prior to the removal of goods from the factory. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has held, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International, 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) that there is no evidence led in by the department to show that special discount clai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal before the Tribunal has been preferred only on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the parameters laid down in this aspects in the Bombay Tyre International case. We find that he has considered the above judgment and his findings based on the judgment are not challenged in the appeal memorandum. Hence, we see no substance in the appeal of the Revenue. We, therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X