GOVIND RUBBER LTD. Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the Order -in -Appeal dt. 31.7.1991, confirming rejection of refund claim, by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove their claim that the actual trade discount had been paid by them to their dealers. Before the Assistant Collector, the appellants had made a submission that the trade discount of 4% and cash discount of 2% was paid for maintenance of establishment of the Selling Agent, viz. M/s. Vishal Sales Corporation. The Assistant Collector had observed that the party did not produce any documentary evidence including bank statement showing proof of payment of trade discount and cash discount to the Dealers/Buyers. He had also observed that the balance sheet of M/s. Vishal Sales Corporation, filed by the Party, is nothing but a profit and loss statement and it does not show that the amount of trade discount and cash discount claimed by the Assessee against the particular invoice/consignment was actually passed on to the Dealers/Buyers. Thus, for lack of evidence, their claim was rejected.

(2.) APPEARING for the Appellants, Ms. Ginny Bedi, the ld. Advocate, submits that notwithstanding the production of evidence, the refund claim made by them for trade and cash discount is required to be allowed. In this regard, the ld. Advocate cited and relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Stallion Shox v. CCE ( : 1996 (85) ELT 139). She also submitted that the Department had initially directed the Appellants to deposit the amount and the same had been deposited under protest. It was her contention that the Assessee cannot be forced to deposit the dues without complying with the requirements of Section 11A and that their refund claim should have been allowed on that ground itself.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we are not impressed with the arguments of the ld. Advocate as the grounds taken by the Appellants in the Refund Claim were changed by them at the time of personal hearing before the Assistant Collector in as much as they had stated that these expenses were for the maintenance of Depot of the Agent, M/s. Vishal Sales Corporation. They had also not produced any evidence to show that they had passed on the trade and cash discount to the Agent and, therefore, the Assistant Collector had rightly decided the matter. Further we notice from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case that the expenses incurred for maintenance of Depots is not a permissible deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the Appeal is rejected.