1998 (8) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case on trade discounts for bulk buyers, emphasizing need for accurate assessment and transparency.

NICCO BATTERIES LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

NICCO BATTERIES LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 132 (Tribunal) Issues:- Dispute over trade discount allowed to a party not at arm's length- Use of brand name and mutual interest in business- Determination of legitimate trade discount for bulk buyer- Need for further verification and quantification of trade discountAnalysis:The case involves an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal confirming a decision regarding the trade discount allowed to a party that was alleged not to be at arm's length. The appellant, a manufacturer of storage batteries, had a marketing agreement with another party, where the brand name was a joint property. The agreement included provisions for trade discounts, special prices for certain customers, and margins for sales by the other party. The dispute arose when the department questioned the 35% trade discount given to the other party, alleging mutual interest and lack of arm's length transactions.The significant terms of the marketing agreement highlighted the use of the brand name and the substantial quantity of products purchased by the other party. The authorities focused on the use of the established manufacturer's name in the brand without apparent consideration and the significant portion of the appellant's production purchased by the other party. However, the ownership of shares and the lack of evidence of mutual interest beyond the marketing agreement were noted. The consideration for using the other party's name was argued to be reflected in the higher trade discount provided.The appellant contended that the substantial purchases by the other party justified the higher trade discount, citing legitimate trade practices and the relief from marketing pressures for bulk buyers. The need to distinguish between the trade discount for bulk purchases and the brand name use was emphasized. The Tribunal suggested a verification exercise to determine the legitimate trade discount entitled to a bulk buyer like the other party, involving comparisons with other manufacturers and their trade practices. Consequently, the case was remanded for further verification and a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing a verification process to quantify the legitimate trade discount for the bulk buyer and allow the appellant an opportunity for personal hearing. The case highlighted the importance of determining the appropriate trade discount for bulk buyers and the need for clarity in assessing the value of goods sold.