M/S. Bhagirath Agro Plast Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal8 September 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/215 & 216/05

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal allows the appeals on the basis that the issue of cash discount is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Purolator India Ltd., and that the appeals are therefore to be allowed in light of that decision.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAIAppeal No.E/215 & 216/05- Mum

(Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. ATM/M-III/135-138/2004 dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? : No 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? : Yes 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? : Seen 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? : Yes

M/s. Bhagirath Agro Plast Ltd. Appellant M/s. Kisan Irrigation Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.S. Gupta, CA for the appellant Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 08.09.2015 Date of decision : 08.09.2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: P.K. Jain:

The issue involved in both the appeals is whether cash discount which is said to have been offered and available to all the customers making payment within stipulated time is to be allowed to be deducted across the board or is to be restricted to the extent actually availed.

2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-193-SC-CX and in view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue no more survives.

3. Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order and submits that the fact that additional amount has been collected by the appellant is not disputed and in view of the said position, the appeal is required to be dismissed.

4. We have considered the submission made by both sides.

5. We find the issue of cash discount is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purolator India Ltd. (supra) and in view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both the appeals are allowed.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

(S. S. Garg) (P.K. Jain) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

//SR

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free