TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals) to give finding on the trade discount allowed by assessee to different parties at different rates disputed by Revenue in adjudication. 2. While giving effect to the above order dated 21.8.2000 of Tribunal by learned Commissioner (Appeals), reliance was placed by him on the order dated 26.4.1999 of Commissioner of Trichy who held that trade discount of the above nature is permissible. But being aggrieved by such decision, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal in Appeal No. E/882/2000 . Such appeal of Revenue was decided by Tribunal against it as is reported in 2008 (222) ELT 520 (Tri. - Chennai). Tribunal held that the pattern of discount being allowed was declared in the price list filed by respondents therein (assessee) wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count as mentioned in the price list and part of the goods to sub-dealers on the advice of the wholesale dealers at a lower discount. The Tribunal had observed that the plea that the wholesale dealers were functioning as commission agents was not tenable. The net realisation by the appellants in all cases were as per price list filed and approved. Hence the appellants were eligible for full discount. In the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal case (supra), the Tribunal found that the trade discount of 20% was given to sub-dealer and 2.5% of the discount taken back and paid to main dealer in whose jurisdiction the sub-dealer was located. The Tribunal held that 20% was admissible for deduction as main dealers were not selling agents. The Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hennai) in para 2 and 3 thereof, following judicial discipline, it is not possible to entertain appeal of Revenue for which that is dismissed. For convenience of reading, para 2 and 3 of the above reported decision is reproduced below:- "2. Grounds stated in the appeal as regards the first issue are that the distributor not being buyer of the goods was a commission agent and the discount received by the distributor was a commission and not discount eligible for abatement from the list price. We find that the Commissioner has passed this part of the order following several judicial authorities as mentioned below:- (i) Electrical Products Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1989 (43) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.)] . (ii) Commissioner of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion as main dealers were not selling agents. The Commissioner found that in the instant case, the distributors were not commission agents and, therefore, the assessee had abated the discount correctly for the purpose of payment of duty. 2.1 We also find that the above pattern of discount being allowed was declared in the price lists filed by the respondents with the department periodically and the show-cause notice issued on 15-6-1995 for demanding short levy relating to clearances made prior to Apr.'94 is hit by limitation. Therefore, we find that the challenge to this part of the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. As regards the other part of the impugned order under challenge related to non-inclusion of proportionate cost of mou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax, Surat Vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. - 2010 (253) ELT 705 (SC). The said para is reproduced for guidance of such authorities. 7. These guidelines are only illustrative in nature, not exhaustive and can further be elaborated looking to the need and requirement of a given case :- (a) It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order. (b) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion. (c) The ultimat....