Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) In the above appeals, common question of law are involved, hence these appeals are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, we shall refer to the facts of the case as found in C.A. Nos. 303-304 of 1999. The respondent in the above appeals is engaged in the manufacture of Toilet Soaps and organic surface active agents. It submitted various price lists under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules') claiming deductions from the assessable value. The Assistant Collector provisionally approved the prices after disallowing some of the deductions claimed. Being aggrieved by the said order of disallowing some of the deductions claimed by it, the respondent preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals who allowed most of the deductions sought by the respondent except three items out of which "discount damages" was one of the items. In an appeal filed to the Customs Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), the Tribunal allowed the said appeal following its earlier orders in Assam Valley Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1989) 43 ELT 360 and Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1992) 60 ELT 512 and directed the original authority to consider afresh claim for deduction in accordance with law in the light of observations contained in the said order. On remand, the original Authority again disallowed some of the deductions claimed by the respondent including the deductions in regard to damages. Having failed in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Tribunal once again and the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent once again solely relying on its judgments in Assam Valley and Tungbhadra Industries cases (supra) and held that discount should be allowed in regard to the value of compensation paid to the buyers in lieu of damages caused to goods during transit depending on the nature and extent of damage.
(2.) It is against this order of the Tribunal, the Collector of Central Excise has preferred the above appeals.
(3.) Learned Attorney General for India appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on Assam Valley (1989 (43) ELT 360) and Tungbhadra Industries cases (supra) as they had no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the case in hand. He further contended that the deduction claimed being in the nature of a post-manufacturing deduction, under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the same is not deductible from the assessable value. He also contended that assuming that such post-manufacturing expenses are deductible, the assessee will have to establish that such deduction is being claimed because same is a part of the trade discounts allowed in accordance with normal practice of that wholesale trade which fact, according to learned Attorney General, the respondent has failed to establish. He also argued that the contention of the respondent that, as a matter of fact, such a practice existed stood belied by the agreement entered into by the respondent with its buyers.;