TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants abatement on various claims and directs re-examination of bank charges and HDPE bags.</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 724 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Disallowance of abatement on discount for damage in transit.2. Disallowance of abatement on bank charges for realization of sale proceeds.3. Disallowance of abatement on HDPE bags used as secondary packing.4. Rejection of deductions claimed for goods supplied to Canteen Store Department, Ministry of Defence.Analysis:1. Disallowance of abatement on discount for damage in transit:The appellant, a manufacturer of soaps and detergents, claimed abatement on discount for damage in transit, which was rejected by the lower authorities as a post-clearance discount. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that such discount depending on the nature and extent of damage was an allowable deduction. The abatement on this count was allowed.2. Disallowance of abatement on bank charges for realization of sale proceeds:The appellant claimed abatement on bank charges for realization of sale proceeds. The Collector (Appeals) questioned the basis for these charges, but the appellant presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate supporting the claim. The Tribunal, citing a previous decision, held that bank charges related to collection of sale proceeds were admissible for abatement. The jurisdictional authority was directed to verify the facts.3. Disallowance of abatement on HDPE bags used as secondary packing:Regarding the inclusion of HDPE bags cost as part of abatement, the appellant argued that the bags were durable and returnable, supported by printed conditions on invoices. The Tribunal noted the requirement for sellers to accept returned packing and refund the stipulated amount, emphasizing the need for a contract between parties for returnability. As the matter was not examined thoroughly, it was directed to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority.4. Rejection of deductions claimed for goods supplied to Canteen Store Department:The contention was raised that the Assistant Collector erred in rejecting deductions for goods supplied to the Canteen Store Department under a contract. However, it was clarified that the show cause notice only pertained to price lists in Part I, while the goods supplied to the Canteen Store Department were listed in Part II. The impugned orders related to abatements for goods supplied to the Canteen Store Department were set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the disallowances on discount for damage in transit, bank charges for realization of sale proceeds, HDPE bags cost, and deductions for goods supplied to the Canteen Store Department. The adjudicating authority was directed to re-examine the claims for bank charges and HDPE bags in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.
TaxTMI 