TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under : 1.1 M/s. Vishal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) are manufacturers of aerated waters chargeable to Central Excise duty under chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. They manufacture aerated waters under the brand name Gold Spot , Limka , Thumsup , Citra and Bisleri and Club Soda. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 12-CE/BPL/2005, dated 10-2-2005 upheld the duty demands but waived the penalty. 1.2 While the appellants have filed appeal No. E/1660/05 against the above order-in-appeal challenging the confirmation of duty demand of ₹ 9,33,250/- on account of disallowance of deduction of trade discounts, the Department has filed appeal No. E/2137/05 against the part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has specifically held that deduction of trade discount, which are normally given and which are known prior to the clearance is permissible, that in view of this, disallowance of deduction on the ground that there is no evidence that the same had actually been given is incorrect and that in view of this, when the confirmation of duty demand itself, is not sustainable, there is no question of impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is as to whether the appellants were eligible for deduction of cash/prompt payment discounts in respect of sales of the goods to sole distributor. There is no dispute about the fact that the discounts are mentioned in the invoices issued to the buyers. The only objection of the department is that the cash discounts or prompt payment discount were conditional discounts and there is no evidence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of deduction of cash/prompt payment discount is not correct. The same is set aside. Since the duty demand has been set aside, there is no question of imposition of penalty on the appellants. 6. In view of the above, the appeal No. E/1660/05 is allowed. The departmental appeal No. E/2137/05 is dismissed. (The operative portion of the order was already pronounced in the open court on 7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
