Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (7) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y a few facts may be stated as under :- 2. The First Petitioner Company manufactures table fans. In respect of the said articles of manufacture, they had submitted certain price-lists. In the light of the Judgments of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner Company submitted the amended price-lists and claimed deduction for the period commencing from 1st September 1971. The deductions claimed were on account of: (i) Marketing and Distribution; (ii) Advertising attributable to selling activity; (iii) Freight; and (iv) Interest. In March 1977, the Petitioner Company submitted a further price-list claiming deduction on account of the expenses incurred for packing. In July 1977, the Superintendent refused to accept the price-list and dire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laimed in respect of all the refund applications. 4. Pursuant to this order passed on 14th December 1983, the Assistant Collector has passed the impugned order on 4th August 1984. In view of the order dated 14th December 1983, the first petitioner/Company produced the necessary material in support of its claim under the various heads enumerated above. However, the Assistant Collector has observed in Para 9 of his order that the claim for deductions under the headings: (1) Commission; (2) Cost of packing; and (3) Interest on Book Debts was, for the present, withdrawn without prejudice to their right to claim the same in the event of the Supreme Court allowing any of these claims of deductions. 5. We have heard Mr. Bharucha and Mr. Sethna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (ii) Cash Discount; and (iii) Quantity/Target Discount. As far as the claim of deduction on account of averaged freight is concerned, the Assistant Collector has accepted the said claim. As far as the claim of deduction on account of cash discount and quantity/target discount is concerned, the Assistant Collector has rejected both these claims. In respect of cash discount given for prompt payment, the Assistant Collector has observed as under :- "In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that the cash discount is admissible, subject to the limitation period prescribed under the Central Excise Law. Accordingly, since cash discount for prompt payment was claimed for the first time on 9-1-1984,1 allow it for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re that the recovery was without jurisdiction. 7. Our attention has also been invited by Mr. Bharucha to another Judgment of this Court in Devidayal Electronics Wires Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 638 (Bom.). R.A. Jahagirdar, J. on consideration of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Shri Vallabh Glass Works reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 171 and the provisions of Section 11B came to the conclusion that there the High Court was exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was permissible to treat the petition as one for the purpose of compelling the respondents to refund to the petitioner the amount of excise duty paid by it, which the petitioner was found to have paid under a mist .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /target discount is concerned, the Assistant Collector has observed in Para 15 of the Order as under :- "The quantity discount/target discounts are claimed by the Company on the basis of various amounts paid by them to the dealers which vary from region to region and within the same region from dealer to dealer." After having observed this, the Assistant Collector proceeded to reject the claim by observing thus :- "The quantum of discounts have to be uniform to all dealers (within the region) for achieving a Particular sale target in order to entitle it to be a permissible discounts." It is difficult to accept this reasoning of the Assistant Collector. If quantity/target discount are admittedly given and if they vary from region to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates