1996 (12) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30-8-1986 and 204087 were issued stating that actually trade discount was given only at the rate of 22.5% and no cash discount had been given and requiring the respondent to show cause why deduction of trade discount should not be limited to 22.5% and why deduction of cash discount should not be disallowed. Respondent resisted the notices. Assistant Collector passed two separate orders dated 2-5-1987 and 10-8-1987 respectively agreeing that cash discount was allowable but restricting trade discount to 22.5%. The manufacturer filed two separate appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who disposed of the same by a common order dated 13-4-1988 allowing deduction of trade discount at 30% and allowing the appeals. The Collector of Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trade discount. 3. Shri T.R. Malik, SDR supporting the conclusions of the Assistant Collector placed reliance on the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Patel Detergents - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 546 (Tribunal). That was a case not of a wholesaler getting a part of the trade discount in regard to goods despatched directly of sub-dealers but was a case of commission paid to consignee distributors who are nothing but selling agents, pure and simple. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. - [1984] (17) E.L.T. 607 held that the kind of commission paid to the consignee-distributors was not deductible. Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. case also dealt with a case of commission paid to....