JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The dispute involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is in regard to the valuation of Ceramic Glazed Tiles manufactured by the respondents.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has held that inasmuch as normal factory gate sale was available, the same has to be made the basis for arriving at the assessable value in terms of the provisions of Section 4 and mere sale of about 2% of the goods to other classes of buyers at higher value will not make such normal price unascertainable. For the above proposition, he has relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE v. Taparia Tools Ltd. reported in 1999 (34) RLT 369 (T), as also on the decision in the case of Kitply Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong . Reliance has also been placed for the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras laying down that “normal price is the price at which goods are sold in the market in wholesale trade, thus sale price to the dealers is normal price under Section 4(l)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as they sell goods to the public. Mere sale of such goods to other classes of buyers does not make such normal price unascertainable for attracting Section 4(l)(b) ibid or Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.
3. As against the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has contended that wholesale buyers located in different origins cannot be held to be different classes of buyers. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the same is based on the law declared by the Tribunal as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Another dispute relates to the abatement on account of quantity discount being offered by the respondent. Such discount in some cases have been offered by the assessee after the clearance. The Commissioner has referred to precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also by the Tribunal in support of its finding that such discounts, if known at the time of clearance of the goods, are deductible. Reference has also been made to the Board’s Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000 clarifying that the duty is chargeable on the net price paid or payable and discount of any description actually given will not be includible in transaction value. No infirmity can be found in the above view of the appellate authority inasmuch as the same is based upon the decision of the higher authorities.
5. The Revenue has also contended that the quantity discount offered by the respondent on the purchase of 300 cartons should be restricted only to one variety of tiles is picked up and the same being offered by the respondent even when different varieties are being picked up by the customers, is not justifiable. We observe that the scheme of offer of discount is the privilege of the assessee and as long as such discount being offered or actually being passed on to the customers, Revenue cannot find fault with offers being made by the assessees.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal and reject the same.