ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. Both these appeals relate to the same issue, Central Excise valuation of motor vehicle parts manufactured by the appellant. The appellant was treating its net sale price as assessable value of these items. Under the impugned orders, it has been held that appellant was granting discounts to different customers at rates varying 4% to 45% of the value of the goods and that such varying discounts are not to be deducted from the sale price while determining assessable value. The impugned orders have proceeded on the basis that discount should be “uniformly based on logical consideration”.
2. The appellant has submitted that the entire proceedings are misplaced. The submission is that the findings have been reached by comparing the dealers’ List Price with the sale price of the appellant. It is being pointed out that such a comparison is inappropriate inasmuch as dealers’ prices have to be much higher than a manufacturer’s price. It is contended that transactions at different tiers of trade are not comparable. The appellant has also explained the factual position with the help of chart and dealers’ list prices that it had paid duty at its net sale price as contemplated under the law.
3. We have perused the records and heard the learned SDR also. The original duty payments have been made in the present case based on the sale price of the appellant. That sale price has to be much less than the dealers’ price inasmuch as dealers’ prices include, in addition to the manufacture’s price, taxes and other costs like freight and dealer’s profit. The appellants are right that comparison with dealers’ price is inappropriate and duty demand has no legal basis. We, therefore, hold that the impugned orders are not sustainable. They are set aside and the appeals are allowed.