Judgment: 1. The dispute pertains to valuation of excisable goods cleared by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the discount claimed by the respondents is admissible as a trade discount. The department's contention right from the stage of show cause notice was that the discount claimed by the respondents has not been passed on to the customers. The original authority dropped the proceedings initiated in four show cause notices as he was satisfied that a factory price was established and that the department does not question the respondents claim for deduction when the goods were sold at the factory gate and therefore, the department should not question as to whether the discount claimed has been passed on or not when the goods are cleared from the assessees regional depots. The Revenue preferred an appeal against this order to the Commissioner who in the impugned order held that the discount claimed are mentioned in the stock transfer invoice and that it has not been established by the Revenue that the discount claimed in respect of factory prices was incorrect. He also held that a factory gate price was established. The respondents demonstrated that whatever discounts that were claimed by them were approved by the Department and so the department cannot raise a fresh contention in respect of sales made from their depots. He upheld the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
3. The facts in this case clearly point out that the respondent has been selling his goods from the factory as well as from his regional depots. The department did not question of admissibility of the discount claim on the goods removed at the factory gate. In other words the Department admits that the discounts claimed are admissible. The department's view that the respondents has to establish that the discount claimed at the factory gate has also been passed on when the goods were removed from the depot is not tenable. This is because the sale at the factory has already been established and the claims for discount were allowed by the department. There is no further need for the respondents to once again establish that discounts are being passed to the customers in regard to the goods removed from their depots. The revenue's appeal is rejected.