1. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of soap on its own and as job worker of other concerns including M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. filed price lists claiming various deductions including deduction on account of bank charges in respect of collection of sale proceeds of excisable goods and discount on account of damages. Assistant Collector rejected the claim under these two heads and the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the rejection. We are in this appeal not concerned with other claims adjudicated upon. Hence the present appeal.
2. Order passed by the Assistant Collector makes it clear that bank charges referred to in the price list relate to bank charges for collection of sale proceeds. Tribunal in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v.C.C.E., 1996 (12) RLT 619 has held that the ratio in MRF judgment, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) relating to interest on receivables would apply to bank charges for collection of sale proceeds. We, therefore, find that the lower authorities were in error in rejecting the contention in this behalf.
3. Appellant claimed deduction on damages also. Assistant Collector rejected this claim on the ground that neither the quantum nor the factum of damages arising in transit or in storage, subsequent to clearance of goods from the factory gate can be known at or prior to the removal of goods. Collector (Appeals) held against the appellant on the ground that once goods are cleared from factory, damage to them would not be a relevant factor as delivery has already been effected at the factory gate. In regard to this aspect, we have held in Final Order No. 847/97-A, dated 13-5-1997 [1997 (93) E.L.T. 724 (T)] in E/A. No.284/97-A, following the decisions of the Tribunal in Assam Valley Plywood Pvt. Ltd. case 1989 (43) E.L.T. 360 (T) and Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. case 1992 (60) E.L.T. 512 (T) that discount allowed to wholesalers in lieu of damage caused to goods during transit depending on the nature and extent of the damage was allowable deduction.
4. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR pointed out that in the case of Tungbhadra Industries the Tribunal remanded the case for verification of the nature and quantum of discount for damage caused to goods in transit and requested that similar direction may be given in this case. We do not think we can agree with the submission. If the Department desired any verification that could have been made either before the issue of show cause notice or the show cause notice could have required the appellant to establish this with reference to each consignment; that was not done. It may not be possible at this distance of time to adduce evidence regarding each consignment cleared in 1986-87. We, therefore, hold that the deduction claimed in respect of discount on damages should be allowed.
5. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.