M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price.” (at para 1) 16. In the second judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC), what has been held is as follows:- “Year Ending Discount and Prompt Payment Discount: What is called 'Year-ending

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process

M/S. B.P.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

disallowing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 dated 23.07.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 respectively to the appellant. 2) The appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 and 90. From January 1997 onwards the appellant had been manufacturing and clearing two Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 1 of 19 Page