Cce Vs. D.M. Woodhead

1. the facts leading to the present appeal filed by the department are that m/s. d.h. woodhead ltd. manufacture automotive shock absorber. in their price lists they claimed lower assessable value for their distributors in comparison to the price meant for stockists by offering 15% trade discount to distributors as against 10% trade discount given to the stockists. the collector of central excise (appeals), following the decision in the case of national auto accessories ltd. v. cce held that different trade discounts given to two different classes of buyers on a principal to principal basis was a legitimate consideration.2. none was present on behalf of the respondents when the matter was called. we heard shri k. srivastava, ld. sdr who submitted that the 5% commission was given to the distributors for procuring orders from the stockists and the promotional cost must form part of the assessable value.3. we observe that the issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the appellate tribunal in the case of cce meerut v. stallion shox ltd. in which it was held that "the term payment of 3% discount to the wholesaler on sales directly effected by the manufacturer to the sub-dealer was known to the trade as per trade pattern....on account of such sales, the wholesaler has the advantage of deriving a small trade discount. there is no material collected by the adjudicating authority to show that the wholesaler acted as agents of the manufacturer or that what was being paid was really in the nature of commission for services rendered." the similar views were expressed in the case of cce v. tulbros automotive ltd. . in the present appeal also, the revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that what was being paid to the distributor was not a trade discount and as such the decisions in stallion shox ltd. and talbros automotive ltd., referred to above, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. accordingly we do (not) find any reason to interfere.....