2002 (1) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 22.02 of Chapter 2 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. There was no sale of aerated water to any wholesale buyer at the factory gate of the appellant. They cleared their manufactured product, aerated water, in glass bottles with the help of a conveyer belt after making payment of duty to their only one duty paid godown situate adjacent to the factory. Such duty paid stocks were sent to the customers in lorries. The driver-cum-salesman deliver the goods in market directly to the customers/dealers at a higher price and issues cash memos. Unsold goods and empties are brought back by him to the said duty paid godown. 4. The appellant while declaring their wholesale price/assessable value claimed certa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....incidental to the cost of the transportation of the goods at the point of delivery of goods to the customers. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that this cost is an admissible deduction as in the case of 'transit insurance' allowed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International Ltd. [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896]. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative contended that no deduction could be claimed for the loss of beverages happened during handling in the godown and also during transport. According to him the appellant's case has to be decided in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE, Meerut v. Surya Roshni Ltd. [2000 (122) E.L.T. 3]. Learned DR further submitted that at any rate the loss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed as deduction. 7. The next issue to be considered is one relating to the claim for deduction towards discount. It is contended by the appellant that the discount given is in the nature of quantity discount and, therefore, is an allowable deduction. Appellant contends that when the customer purchases one crate of 24 bottles of 250 mls. i.e. 6 litres of aerated water, he gets a free supply of one bottle of new flavour/size of aerated water. In other words, instead of paying the price of one crate of old aerated water and of a bottle of new flavour/size, he pays the price of only one crate of old aerated water. This, according to the appellant, is a discount in the form of quantity or kind which is an acceptable form of trade. Learn....