TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort) said to be dealers of the respondents. M/s. DIS had also, in turn, raised invoices on the consignees, wherein the entire discount received by the former from the respondents was not passed on to the consignees (buyers). In other words, M/s. DIS collected higher price for the goods from the consignees than the price paid by them to the respondents. The original authority considered this higher price as the normal price of the goods under Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act as this provision stood during the material period (1989-92) and, accordingly, held that the respondents were liable to pay differential duty over and above the amount of duty paid by them based on the price charged for the goods under the commercial invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and warranty and that M/s. DIS should indicate this to their customers. These terms and conditions of the Agreement were carefully considered and interpreted by the lower appellate authority to mean that M/s. DIS were a 'dealer' of the respondents and were entitled to a trade discount of 20% on the List Price of the goods. The above Agreement was dated 1-8-1989. We have also found on record a Supplementary Agreement dated 29-9-89, wherein M/s. DIS were allowed to offer discount for canvassing purchase orders in the face of competition from other manufacturers. It was further provided that such discount would be shared equally by the respondents and M/s. DIS. According to these terms and conditions, where M/s. DIS offered 20% discount to a ....