Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1989 43 ELT 360 and Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1992 60 ELT 512 and directed the original Authority to companysider afresh claim for deduction in accordance with law in the light of observations companytained in the said order.
In an appeal filed to the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT , the Tribunal allowed the said appeal following its earlier orders in Assam Valley Plywood Pvt.
It is against this order of the Tribunal, the Collector of Central Excise has preferred the above appeals.
Being aggrieved by the said order of disallowing some of the deductions claimed by it, the respondent preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals who allowed most of the deductions sought by the respondent except three items out of which discount damages was one of the items.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. In the above appeals, companymon questions of law are involved, hence these appeals are disposed of by this companymon order.
On remand, the original Authority again disallowed some of the deductions claimed by the respondent including the deductions in regard to damages.
Having failed in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Tribunal once again and the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent once again solely relying on its judgments in Assam Valley and Tungbhadra Industries cases supra and held that discount should be allowed in regard to the value of companypensation paid to the buyers in lieu of damages caused to goods during transit depending on the nature and extent of damage.
