Collector of Central Excise Vs. Best Board Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Best Board Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 12, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13412

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/13412
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: May 12, 1998
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

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Best Board Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)LC636Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. we have heard shri k. srivastava, sdr for the appellant.2. there is no dispute that respondent was allowing cash discount to buyers who made payment within 2 days of delivery and that this discount was known to the trade and available to all buyers who satisfied the condition. it appears that apart from giving the discount to those buyers who made the payment within 2 days, respondent gave the same discount to other buyers also who did not satisfy the condition.on this ground the assistant collector directed deduction of cash discount to be allowed only in case where it was actually passed on.the collector (appeals) allowed deduction of cash discount on the ground that it was known to the buyers. this order is being challenged by the department.3. according to shri k. srivastava, sdr since cash discount was given even to buyers who did not make payment within 2 days, it would not be admissible for deduction. we do not agree with the submission. once it is shown that the scheme of cash discount was known to the trade and it was admissible to all buyers who satisfy the condition, it would be admissible deduction. the fact that the respondent had in some cases granted discount even to those who did not satisfy the condition, would not render the discount inadmissible.

Full Judgment

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR for the appellant.

2. There is no dispute that respondent was allowing cash discount to buyers who made payment within 2 days of delivery and that this discount was known to the trade and available to all buyers who satisfied the condition. It appears that apart from giving the discount to those buyers who made the payment within 2 days, respondent gave the same discount to other buyers also who did not satisfy the condition.

On this ground the Assistant Collector directed deduction of cash discount to be allowed only in case where it was actually passed on.

The Collector (Appeals) allowed deduction of cash discount on the ground that it was known to the buyers. This order is being challenged by the department.

3. According to Shri K. Srivastava, SDR since cash discount was given even to buyers who did not make payment within 2 days, it would not be admissible for deduction. We do not agree with the submission. Once it is shown that the scheme of cash discount was known to the trade and it was admissible to all buyers who satisfy the condition, it would be admissible deduction. The fact that the respondent had in some cases granted discount even to those who did not satisfy the condition, would not render the discount inadmissible.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Best Board Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax