ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufactured solenoid valves. The valves were made as per the specific designs and requirements of the users. They filed price list in part II. In the part II price list trade discounts were claimed. The Assistant Collector held that part II contract prices were essentially result of negotiations and that trade discounts which were generally offered to dealers did not find place in such price lists. On this ground he approved the classification list minus the discounts. In the follow-up order the Assistant Collector confirmed the resultant demand. The Co1 lector (Appeals) dealing with the issue in his common impugned order ob-served that part II price lists which were filed in the case of custom built articles, would be the result of a direct sale to the buyer under a specific contract and the question of discount would not arise at all. On this ground he upheld the lower orders. Hence the present appeals.
2. We have heard Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari for the Revenue.
3. Shri Patil submits that although the valves are supplied to certain specifications, a number of valves of each specification are manufactured. A number of such valves are sold to dealers who are entitled to discounts which are excludible when computing the assessable value. We find that the limited issue for consideration is whether the price list filed in part II can admit of the claim of deduction on account of the discounts at all. Such price lists are filed where the goods are sold at different prices to different classes of buyers. The possibility of extension of discounts does not stand excluded on this ground at all. In other words, each class of buyer is entitled to discounts. We have also seen the proforma prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The proforma itself admits of the deducibility of the discount. Therefore we find that the learned Commissioner’s belief that in each case where the price list is filed in proforma II, there could exist no dealers, was not sound in law.
4. We, therefore, allow the appeals with consequential relief