Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cce Vs. Ubha Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Cce vs Ubha Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 04, 2005
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38352

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Ubha Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(185)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the revenue is in appeal against the orders of the commissioner of central excise (appeals), who has held that the discount ranging from 5% to 27% given by the respondents, who are the manufacturers of apparatus for measuring and checking electrical quantities and transformers and supplying the same to the dealers, is permissible in law. according to the revenue, the varying rates of discounts were negotiated on telephone and over the counter and it cannot be said that the terms of discounts were known to the buyers in the wholesale trade prior to removal of the goods. the revenue accepts that upto 10% discount is normal and therefore challenges allowing discount in excess of 10% to the dealers.2. none appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. we have heard ld. sdr for the appellant. we find that the varying discount allowed should be known and understood prior to removal of goods and subsequent discounts negotiated over the telephone or across the counter cannot be known prior to removal of goods. therefore, they are not permissible and we accept the revenue's contention in this regard and set aside the discount given in excess of 10% and allow the appeals.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has held that the discount ranging from 5% to 27% given by the respondents, who are the manufacturers of apparatus for measuring and checking electrical quantities and transformers and supplying the same to the dealers, is permissible in law. According to the Revenue, the varying rates of discounts were negotiated on telephone and over the counter and it cannot be said that the terms of discounts were known to the buyers in the wholesale trade prior to removal of the goods. The Revenue accepts that upto 10% discount is normal and therefore challenges allowing discount in excess of 10% to the dealers.

2. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. We have heard Ld. SDR for the appellant. We find that the varying discount allowed should be known and understood prior to removal of goods and subsequent discounts negotiated over the telephone or across the counter cannot be known prior to removal of goods. Therefore, they are not permissible and we accept the Revenue's contention in this regard and set aside the discount given in excess of 10% and allow the appeals.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial