Collector of Central Excise Vs. Marigold Paints

Collector of Central Excise vs Marigold Paints

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 13, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14651

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/14651
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 13, 1998
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Marigold Paints

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(111)ELT648TriDel

Excerpt

.....by the order of the collector of central excise (appeals), ahmedabad by which he has held that the additional trade discount and secondary packing charges are permissible deductions from the assessable value of the paints and varnishes manufactured by the respondents herein.2. since the respondents have asked for a decision on merits, we heard shri s.p. rao, learned dr and perused the records.3. we find that identical issues have been decided by the tribunal in the case of bee pee coating ltd. (final order no. 739-740/95-a, dated 8-11-1995). in this order, the tribunal has held that the question of deduction of additional trade discount (allowed by the principal to its dealers) is a question of fact depending entirely on the materials which the assessees place before the authorities concerned, either by way of records of the principal or by way of statements given by the principal to the assessees, and that the assessees are not entitled to deduction of whatever amount has been disbursed by the principal to its dealers by way of additional trade discount. the tribunal has held that the assessees can legitimately claim deduction only to the extent actually granted by the principal to its dealers on account of sale of products supplied to it by the assessees. the tribunal directed quantification based upon the materials to be placed by the assessees before the authorities concerned. as regards secondary packing, the tribunal held that such packing is not used in the course of wholesale trade in the factory gate and, therefore, the cost thereof is liable to be deducted in determining the assessable value. in the case before us, the department has not been able to establish that the packing charges claimed as deductions was such packing as was required to put the goods into the stream of wholesale trade, and that the packing was not in the nature of secondary packing. therefore, we hold that the secondary packing charges are deductable from the assessable.....

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad by which he has held that the additional trade discount and secondary packing charges are permissible deductions from the assessable value of the paints and varnishes manufactured by the respondents herein.

2. Since the respondents have asked for a decision on merits, we heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR and perused the records.

3. We find that identical issues have been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Bee Pee Coating Ltd. (Final Order No. 739-740/95-A, dated 8-11-1995). In this order, the Tribunal has held that the question of deduction of additional trade discount (allowed by the principal to its dealers) is a question of fact depending entirely on the materials which the assessees place before the authorities concerned, either by way of records of the principal or by way of statements given by the principal to the assessees, and that the assessees are not entitled to deduction of whatever amount has been disbursed by the principal to its dealers by way of additional trade discount. The Tribunal has held that the assessees can legitimately claim deduction only to the extent actually granted by the principal to its dealers on account of sale of products supplied to it by the assessees. The Tribunal directed quantification based upon the materials to be placed by the assessees before the authorities concerned. As regards secondary packing, the Tribunal held that such packing is not used in the course of wholesale trade in the factory gate and, therefore, the cost thereof is liable to be deducted in determining the assessable value. In the case before us, the Department has not been able to establish that the packing charges claimed as deductions was such packing as was required to put the goods into the stream of wholesale trade, and that the packing was not in the nature of secondary packing. Therefore, we hold that the secondary packing charges are deductable from the assessable value of the final products manufactured by the respondents. Regarding the deduction of additional trade discount, we find that the lower appellate authority himself has held that the quantum of deduction will be subject to production of invoices and other necessary documents and verification of the same by the Department and we see no reason to interfere with this finding. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Marigold Paints Same Subject Land Acquisition