- (1.) The appellant Azad Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. has, in this appeal, challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. whereby the learned Judge made absolute in part the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) In this appeal, we are only concerned with the question whether the appellant is entitled to get a deduction of commission varying from 7-1/2% to 10% given to its three dealers, namely, (1) M/s. Automobile Distributing Centre, (2) M/s. Howrah Motor Co. (P) Ltd., and (3) M/s. G.M.C. Brothers & Co., under explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The learned Judge has allowed a deduction of 50% as trade discount which the appellant gives to its wholesale dealers, in accordance with the provision of the explanation to Section 4. It is the case of the appellant that as it has to promote the sale of the goods manufactured by it by giving commission to its selling agents, such commission should also be deducted from the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit for the purpose of assessment of excise duty payable on the goods. The explanation to Section 4 refers to trade discount. Admittedly, the commissions which are alleged to have been paid by the appellant to its agents for the promotion of the sale of goods are not trade discounts within the meaning of the explanation to Section 4. In the circumstances and apart from the reasons given by the Assistant Collector of Custorrts, as the commissions cannot be treated as trade discounts, we are of the view that the learned Judge was justified in overruling the contention of the appellant for the deduction of the amounts of commission as trade discounts under the explanation to Section 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy & Anr. V/s. Voltas Ltd., 1973 AIR(SC) 225 does not in any manner support the contention of the appellant for such deduction of the amounts of commission from the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit of the goods concerned. No other point has been urged in this appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.;