ORDER
S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)
1. These fifty six appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is common to all the appeals.
2. The issue in all these appeals is whether assessable value of soap and vegetable products manufactured by the appellants should be revised upward to include rebate which was granted on the Excise Duty subject to the conditions of notification which prescribed use of certain specified raw materials. Admittedly the appellants did not pass on the benefit to the consumers. It is submitted that in view of the nature of the notification the value cannot be revised even in the absence of such passing on. The Assistant Collector rejected their contention. On appeal, the Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence the appeal.
3. Shri Beri appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the issue was already decided by this Tribunal in its order No. 790 to 962/89-A, dated the 6th December, 1989 and this issue is covered by the said order.
4. The respondents opposed the contention of the appellants that in view of the cases of Collector of Central Excise v. M.A. Paper and Card Board Factory (P) Ltd. as reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 488; M/s. Hubli Chemicals Works v. Collector of Central Excise Madras as reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 488 (Tribunal), rebate which is not passed on to the consumer should be added to the assessable value.
5. We agree with contention of Shri Beri. This Tribunal in its order No. 790-962/89 (to which one of us is a party) held as follows:-
“We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is true that the Board’s orders are not binding on the Tribunal, but when the Board wants the Collectors to take a particular view which is advantageous to the assessees we feel that the assessees should get an opportunity for pleading for the advantage. Admittedly, the Board’s circular was not considered by the adjudicating and appellate authorities in all these appeals. Therefore, following the ratio of the Tribunal’s earlier order, we set aside the impugned orders and remand all these matters to the respective adjudicating authorities for fresh consideration. We further direct that before passing fresh orders these authorities should extend to the appellants reasonable opportunity to make written and oral submissions.”
Shri Beri submits that in some of the appeals the question of levy of special excise duty is also involved. As we have set aside the orders without saving any part of them whatever issues were involved in these orders should be considered afresh.”
6. The Supreme Court also in SLP No. 4515/1977 Civil Appeal No. 1893/1974 in Western India Vegetable Products Etc. v. J.R. Kartikar and Ors. by their order dated April 6,1990 observed as follows :-
“In view of circular No. F. No. 90/3/87/CX-3, dated 9-9-1987 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs the civil appeal as well as the special leave petition are allowed. Both the parties are directed to act in accordance with contents of the circular. There will be no order as to cost.”
7. In the light of the orders of this Tribunal referred to above and also the Supreme Court order referred to above, we allow the appeals and direct the Assistant Collector to reassess the assessable value in the light of circular referred to above in the judgment of the Supreme Court.