ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The Revenue is in appeal. The dispute is with regard to 2% discount given to buyers who pay in advance. It has been submitted that this discount is given only to about 85% of the buyers who pay in advance and not to the remaining 15% buyers. It has also been stated that this discount is, strictly speaking, not a cash discount which is permissible for deduction but, a discount for advance payment. The Revenue, therefore, holds that the 2% deduction being not a cash discount, it is liable to be included in the assessable value.
2. As against the aforesaid stand of the Revenue, learned Counsel representing the respondents draws our attention in particular to observations of the adjudicating authority in page 10 of the impugned order. The order states that the discount was denied to those buyers who did not make the payment before the delivery of the goods. The 2% discount was given uniformly to all dealers who effected payment before the delivery of the goods. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the distinction was between cash and carry buyers and credit sales. He submits that this is a distinction clearly understood in the trade and the difference in treatment of such classes also is common in the trade. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Stallion Shox Ltd. reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 139 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal held that cash discount is deductable even if all the customers might not have availed the benefit of the same.
3. From a perusal of the order of the Commissioner, it is clear that the distinction with regard to discount is in respect of dealers who pay before carrying the goods and dealers who pay thereafter. Therefore, the deduction allowed is clearly towards cash payment before purchase of the goods. Thus, it is a cash discount though described as ‘advance payment discount’. It is settled law that cash discounts are eligible for deduction. Difference in nomenclature makes no difference to the eligibility of a discount for deduction while fixing the assessable value. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. The same is dismissed.
