Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Auto Lamps Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 September, 1986
He submitted that the Tribunal had accepted that distributors were a distinct class of buyers in the case of Auto Lamps Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 889. He further submitted that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172 was not applicable to the facts of the appellants' case since in that case the department was insisting on a separate price list being filed by the assessee in respect of sales to upcountry wholesale dealers on account of extra price charged from them in respect of secondary packing. The learned counsel further added that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in arriving at the finding that 10% extra trade discount offered to the distributors was in the nature of compensation for the jobs such as advertisement, and promotion of sales undertaken on behalf of the assessee. He argued that the Collector (Appeals) had failed to take into account the fact that distributors were required to buy a large quantity of 2000 pairs of Tie Rod Ends per month whereas there was no such stipulation in respect of stockists. He further contended that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in arriving at the finding that the distributors were charged with the responsibility of advertising the products. He stated that the primary responsibility for advertising the products in different parts of the country rested with the appellants in different parts of the country rested with the appellants and even though the option to advertise on regional basis was available to the distributors, there was no evidence on record that distributors had in fact incurred any expenditure on this account. He contended that even if any such expenditure was incurred by the distributors it would not form a part of the assessable value.
Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 November, 1987
7. We find that in the case of Mahendra and Mahendra Limited v. Union of India reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 76 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that even if in terms of an agreement of distributorship with the manufacturer the wholesale buyer carries out after sale service and shares the amount spent on advertisement, the transaction would still have to be deemed as on principal to principal basis. Para 11 of the judgment is reproduced below :-
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
3. On behalf of the appellants the learned advocate Shri H.K. Maingi appeared before us. He stated that the price-list in Part-I filed by the appellants was applicable to normal wholesale buyers who were being extended a discount of 25% whereas during the relevant period in respect of the distributors who entered into agreements with the appellants undertaking to purchase 2000 pairs of Tie Rod Ends per month, higher trade discount of 35% was claimed in the price-list in Part-II since they constituted a separate class of buyers. He added that the price declared in the list in Part-II applicable to distributors also represented the assessable value since sales to them were on principal to principal basis and the price was the sole consideration. He contended that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International, reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329, discount allowed in the Trade has to be deducted from the sale price having regard to the nature of the goods and if it is extended in terms of an agreement.
Standard Electric Appliances vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And ... on 15 March, 1978
In support of the contention that the absence of uniform discount cannot be the basis for disallowing the discount the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions reported in A.K. Ray and Ors. v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. - 1979 (4) E.L.T. 521, Sharada Silicate & Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Coim-batore - 1979 (4) E.L.T. 20, Standard Electric Appliances v. Supdt. of Central Excise and Anr. -1979 (4) E.L.T. 53, Kerala Ceramics Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Excise and Ors. -1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 53), 1978 (2) E.L.T. 238, 1978 (2) E.L.T. 1224 and 1978 (2) E.L.T. 444. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with facts and principles set out in the said decisions, but suffice to say, it is held that the discout may vary from dealer to dealer, for place to place and from time to time depending upon commercial exigencies"
Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 September, 1983
In the case of Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 629 the Tribunal has also held that extra differential discount to dealers in addition to the minimum discount, based on legitimate commercial consideration of volume of purchase would be legally permissible. Para 6 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced below :
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs Government Of India And Ors. on 5 November, 1981
7A. It is also seen that in the case of Jay Engg. Works Ltd., Hyderabad v. Govt. of India and Ors, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 378, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that trade discount need not be uniform but may vary from dealer to dealer, place to place and from time to time depending upon commercial exigencies and the fact that different discounts will result in different assessable values will not affect the position since there is no prohibition in the Act against allowing different discounts. The relevant extract from para 11 of the judgment is reproduced below :
A.K. Roy And Ors. vs Carona Sahu Company Limited on 1 January, 1800
10. We are inclined to agree with the appellants that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not relevant to the fact of this case since the main question that arose for consideration in that case was whether the secondary packing in which the refrigerators were supplied to wholesale dealers outside Bombay would form a part of the assessable value of the goods.
1