Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Gaurav Agro Plast (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 24 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(105)ECR523(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver pre-deposit of the duty confirmed we find that the issue involved having already been settled the appeals themselves could be disposed off. We do so on granting the prayer for waiver.
2. These three appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue here is whether reduction claimed on account of cash discount was available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that some of the customers had availed of the same or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the Tribunal's decision in the case of Stallion Shox Ltd. v. CCE where it was held that such discount was admissible even where it was not passed on to all the buyers. He, however, followed the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Hindustan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 1994 (52) ECR 553 (Bombay). In this only that portion of the cash discount was permitted which had actually been off by the customers.
3. We find that the Tribunal and the High Courts have been had occasion to examine this issue in latter judgements also. In fact in a Judgment reported earlier Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. UOI 1993 (65) ELT 186 : 1993 (47) ECR 161 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court had held as admissible such discount irrespective of the uniform availment. The Judgment was not taken into account by the High Court when making the order in the case of Hindustan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (supra). Subsequently the Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court 1994 (73) ELT 858.
4. The Tribunal in their Judgment in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE 200 (41) RLT 100 has taken into account both these judgements of the Bombay High Court and have followed the ratio of the Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. In view of that Judgment having been upheld by the Supreme Court we find in favour of the appellants.
5. These appeals are allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.