ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 466 to 468-CE/DLH/91 dated 29.4.1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi dismissing three separate appeals filed by the common appellant against three separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Gurgaon.
2. Original orders were passed on certain price lists filed by the common appellant. Appellant is aggrieved only on two aspects, namely, disallowance of abatement for depot distribution expenses and for “discount” claimed in the price lists.
3. That depot distribution expenses would not be admissible for deduction is laid down in M.R.F. Ltd. .
4. The particular “discount” disallowed by the lower authorities was referred to in the price lists only as “discount” without indicating the nature of the discount, the class of the buyers who would be eligible for discount and the terms and conditions for allowing discount. When the matters were pending before the Collector (Appeals), the appellant stated that this discount would differ from market to market or depot to depot. The appellant also indicated to the Collector (Appeals) that the discount related to Hospital Discount, Canteen Stores ‘ Department Discount and discount given occasionally to consumers by marking on the label of the product in certain areas and on certain occasions or festivals. Even these particulars were not declared in the price lists or placed before the Assistant Collector. Even before the first appellate authority the terms and conditions for allowing such discount, the rate of hospital discount and canteen stores department discount were not disclosed. In these circumstances, we do not think that there is any error in lower authorities holding such “discount” as inadmissible for abatement. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeals.
(Dictated in Open Court).