ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal against the decision dated 24-12-1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) has directed the Assistant Collector to adopt a pattern indicated by the Collector (Appeals) in the earlier order.
2. The respondents were manufacturers of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents had filed various price lists from February, 1989 where they have claimed certain deductions from the price on account of various post manufacturing expense charges such as trade discounts, cash discounts surcharge and sales tax, freight, insurance etc. Assessments were made provisionally in terms of Rule 9B of the Rules. There was no evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the Assistant Collector, by order dated 1-1-1993, approved the price list finally disallowing deductions. The assessees went in appeal to the Collector (Appeals), who, by his order dated 21-1-1993 directed the Assistant Collector to finalise the case on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 1184/80. Hence this appeal by the Department.
3. It is contended by the Departmental Representative before us that even if the matter goes back to the Assistant Collector, the matter cannot be decided in view of the insufficiency of the accountal evidence given by the assessees. They also reiterated in ground 2, namely, no documentary evidence in the nature of stock records at the depots to denote the old stock pertaining to the assessee. The Departmental Representative’s further argument that if the customer did not avail the discount but if it is granted by way of deductions in the price lists it would amount unjust enrichment. Last but not least, it has been contended by the Department that the Department has not accepted the order of the Bombay High Court’s decision in WP 1184/80 in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.
4. We have heard the Departmental Representative and also heard Shri K.K. Shroff, the ld. Advocate for the respondent assessee.
5. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). He has only directed in Para 7 of his order that the Assistant Collector had to finalise the decision on the basis of the Bombay High Court’s judgment. The judgment in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd’s case [1993 (65) E.L.T. 186] is not a judgment in the peculiar circumstances of the case brought before it. It was more in the nature of a declaration of law made by the High Court. Therefore, even if the argument sought to be made by the Departmental Representative that the judgment would be confining to the facts of the case, cannot be accepted. We therefore find the impugned order is not wrong in law and the same is upheld.
6. Appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed.