TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2001 (130) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)]. The dispute is about the eligibility of quantity discount as deduction from the sale price while fixing the assessable value. The period involved in the two appeals are 26th February 1990 to 31st December 1995. 2. The contention of the learned counsel is that there could be no dispute about the eligibility of quantity discount for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case, the submission of the learned counsel is that the learned adjudicating authority denied the discount upon a finding that availability of quantity discount was being communicated to dealers through the appellants and such communication is not a valid mode of the communication. As against this finding of the original authority, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It also submitted that since no written agreement had been produced about the quantity discount, the appellant did not satisfy the requirement of discounts being known at the time of removal of goods. The learned SDR has taken us through much case law to show that discount should be known at the time of removal of goods. 5. The legal position is clear. Between the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed. What is relevant for assessment is whether a discount is allowed or not and not for what reason it is being allowed. The 'norm' and 'criterion' are entirely in the domain of sellers and buyers and tax authorities gain nothing by being privy to those decisions. 6. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that the quantity discount was an eligible deduction and the orders to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
