SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1979-6-1
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 13,1979

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U.L. Bhat, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27-3-1989 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector. The appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and perused the papers.
(2.) Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Soda Ash Light and Dense, filed price list dated 1-4-1987 effective from 5-4-1987 claiming deduction of cash discount and rebate of Rs. 250.00 per tonne in respect of extra price collected during the previous period. The lower authorities concurrently rejected the claim for deduction of the rebate amount from the assessable value. We have already disposed of Appeal No. E/1514/89-A filed by the same appellant by Order No. 794/97-A, dated 2-5-1997 -1997 (93) E.L.T. 729 (Tribunal). The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in that appeal. In respect of a prior period, the price list declared that Rs. 250.00 per tonne will be recovered separately from industrial consumers towards modernisation and renovation charges and without claiming any abatement, duty was paid on such amount also. In price list dated 1-4-1997 appellant proposed refund of the rebate collected earlier and claimed abatement in respect of the same from the assessable value.
(3.) IN the Order-in-Appeal No. E/1514/89-A, we examined the various circulars issued by the appellant and held that in the previous year appellant raised money for the purpose of modernisation and renovation on the understanding that the same will be repaid the next year and will not carry any interest and it was only a scheme for raising loan to meet specified contingencies and to be repaid in due course. Accordingly, it was held that the rebate was not one in the nature of discount but in the nature of loan repayment and, therefore, deduction would not be admissible. For the same reasons, we hold that deduction claimed in this case in respect of rebate also would not be admissible.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.