Trade discount admissibility on motor vehicle parts sales upheld where invoices, trade practice, and no evidence of mala fide supported the claim.

A 21% trade discount on sales of motor vehicle parts was treated as admissible because it accorded with trade practice, appeared in the invoices even on credit sales, and was supported by arm's length transactions. The Revenue failed to produce material showing that the discount was unknown at the time of clearance, and verbal sale orders alone were insufficient to reject it absent mala fide or malpractice. The discount was therefore allowed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the 21% trade discount claimed on sales of motor vehicle parts.

Analysis: The appellate authority had treated the 21% discount as a normal trade discount permissible under law, noting that it was in accordance with trade practice, reflected in invoices even on credit sales, and supported by arm's length transactions. The Revenue did not place material to show that the discount was not known at the time of clearance. Verbal sale orders, by themselves, did not justify rejection of the discount in the absence of mala fide or mal-practice.

Conclusion: The 21% trade discount was held to be admissible, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A trade discount cannot be disallowed merely because sales are on credit or sale orders are verbal, where the discount is reflected in the invoices, accords with trade practice, and there is no material showing that it was unknown at the time of removal or that any mala fide or mal-practice existed.

---