1999 (5) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants granted deductions for freight, quantity discount, damages, and clearing charges in favorable judgment.

The judgment favored the appellants, allowing deductions for freight from Depot to Depot, quantity discount, discount for damages, and charges for ... Valuation Issues Involved:Whether items like freight from Depot to Depot, quantity discount, discount for damages, and charges for clearing are eligible for deduction from the price while fixing the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants.Analysis:Freight from Depot to Depot:The appellant argued that transportation charges should be deductible as per various court decisions. Referring to the Supreme Court's observation in Shiva Glass Works case, it was emphasized that equalization of freight should not affect the claim for deduction. The High Court of Calcutta also supported the deduction of transportation costs from the factory to the final delivery point. The Tribunal had previously allowed such deductions, and the appellant's appeal was supported by these precedents.Quantity Discount:The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision where the Revenue's appeal against deduction towards quantity discount was dismissed. This established the permissibility of deducting quantity discounts. The appellant's position was further strengthened by citing relevant precedents that supported deductions for quantity discounts.Discount for Damages:The appellant contended that deductions for damages were permissible based on previous Tribunal decisions. However, the Revenue argued that the discount for damages was not a typical trade discount but related to post-clearance damages. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in M.R.F. Ltd. case, the Revenue claimed that such discounts were not deductible. The appellant countered by stating that the Tribunal's decision in the Bombay Soap Factory case considered the MRF judgment, making the Supreme Court's observations irrelevant.Charges for Clearing:The appellant highlighted that deductions for bank charges were settled in their favor by Tribunal decisions. The appellant argued that the issue had already been decided in their favor in previous cases, and there was no valid ground presented by the Revenue to distinguish the current situation from those precedents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants with the necessary relief granted.In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellants, allowing deductions for freight from Depot to Depot, quantity discount, discount for damages, and charges for clearing based on established legal precedents and lack of sufficient grounds presented by the Revenue to challenge these deductions.