Judgment:
1. All the four appeals filed by the Revenue are being taken up together as they are against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The short dispute involved in these present appeals is as to whether cash discount given by the Respondents to their customers as prompt payment discount are admissible deductions for the purpose of Section 4 irrespective of the fact whether all the customers have availed such offer given by the manufacturer or not.
2. As per facts on record the Respondents were issued show cause notices proposing to confirm the demand of duty against the Respondents on the ground that the cash discount have not been availed by their customers uniformly. Such cash discounts were being offered by the Respondents to their buyers at different rates depending upon the payment of cash. In case advance payment was made by the customers, the discount of 3% was being offered. If the payments were being made within 10 days or within 20 days, the discount offered was to the tune of 2% and 1 % respectively. If the payment was being made after a period of 20 days, there was no cash discount. The notices issued to the respondents alleged that inasmuch as all their customers did not avail the benefit of their offer to the extent of 3% discount when advance payments were made, the said discount of 3% cannot be allowed to be deducted from the total price received by them for the purposes of assessable value and wherever the discount has not been passed on to the buyers the same would form part of the assessable value.
3. The Respondents, during the adjudication before the Assistant Commissioner, relied upon the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court judgment rendered in the case of Jenson & Nicholson, 1984 (17) ELT 4 (Bom). The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty' of demand against the receivable by holding that the interest in respect of the respondents is required to be added in the assessable value. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Assistant Commissioner the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on two grounds,--firstly on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and secondly, on the ground that in any case the cash discount of 3% being offered by the assessee at the time of clearance of the goods from their factory uniformly to all the customers is a permissible discount from the assessable value irrespective of the fact whether all the customers have availed the same or not. Hence these present appeals by the Revenue.
4. We have heard Ld. DR Shri P. Devadulu for the Revenue and Ld.
Counsel Shri R. Swaminathan, for the Respondents.
5. We find that the issue is no longer 'res-integra' and has been decided in favour of the Respondents by a number of decision of the Tribunal as well as by various judicial bodies.
6. In the case of CCE, Meerut v. Stallion Shox Ltd., 1996 (12) RLT 609 (CEGAT-A) it was held that cash discount of 2.5% is liable to be deducted from the price list price irrespective of the fact that all the customers might not have availed the benefit of the same. Similarly in the case of CCE, Cochin v. Kerala oil & Soaps Ltd., 1998 (97) ELT 264 (T) it has been held that the cash discount allowed to the dealers who pay price in cash is an admissible deduction even 'if some buyers did not make payment in the prescribed manner and did not avail the discount. Similarly, in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. CCE, Calcutta-II, 2001 (136) ELT 382 (Tri-Kolkata) majority view held that the cash discount is admissible deduction from the assessable value as long as the same is being offered to all buyers who satisfy the conditions of the scheme and is known to the buyers before removal of the goods, irrespective of the fact whether all the buyers avail of the benefit of the same or not. The said decision has taken into account the entire relevant case law on the point and after discussing the same held that the cash discount is admissible deduction from the assessable value irrespective of the fact that all the customers have availed the benefit or not. To the effect are another decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II, 2002 (50) RLT 238 (CEGAT-MUM.). Majority of these decisions have relied upon the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court judgment rendered in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints v. UOI, 1993 (65) ELT 186 (Mum).
7. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided in favour of the Respondents by the above referred decisions of the Tribunal as well as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court, we find no justification to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, all the appeals filed the Revenue are rejected.