Antifriction Bearings Vs. C.C.E.

Antifriction Bearings vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 06, 1997

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10765

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10765
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Feb 06, 1997
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Antifriction Bearings

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (1997)(92)ELT206TriDel

Excerpt

1. appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for transfer of the appeal to the bench at bombay. at this stage, we do not find it possible to transfer the appeal. we have heard shri t. r.malik, sdr and perused the papers.2. by the impugned order, the collector of central excise, pune disallowed deduction of what is called "prompt payment cash discount" of 3%. it was disallowed on the ground that this discount had been given to all buyers irrespective of prompt or delayed payment. if that be so, its real nature is that of trade discount given to all dealers and as such, deduction would be allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for transfer of the appeal to the Bench at Bombay. At this stage, we do not find it possible to transfer the appeal. We have heard Shri T. R.Malik, SDR and perused the papers.

2. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune disallowed deduction of what is called "prompt payment cash discount" of 3%. It was disallowed on the ground that this discount had been given to all buyers irrespective of prompt or delayed payment. If that be so, its real nature is that of trade discount given to all dealers and as such, deduction would be allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Antifriction Bearings vs C.C.E. Same Subject Service Tax