SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 453

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
Addison And Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise, Madras – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. Two questions arise in these appeals namely (1) deductibility of turnover discount and (2) additional discount.

3. So far as the additional discount is concerned the matters have to go back to the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain the nature and character of the discount and determine its deductibility according to law.

4. So far as the turnover discount is concerned we are of the opinion that it has to be allowed in the light of the judgment of this Court in Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [(1995) 4 SCC 349], (SCC at pp. 384-385, paras 49 to 51). In these cases also the turnover discount is provided as an incentive for the dealer to lift higher and higher the volume of goods. The rate of discount ascends according to the rise in the volume of purchases. For example, for Delhi City the figures are the following :

Annual Turnover Policy for all Types of Standard Cutting Tools

(Period : April 1988 to March 1989)

Applicable for the Dealers covered by :

DELHI CITY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Turnover Slabs on Gross Value Turn















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top