Judgment:
1. The short point to be considered in this five appeals is whether the interest on security deposit is to be included in the assessable value.V S.T. Industries v. C.C.E.reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 held that "there is nothing on record to show that the receipt of the deposit from some of the dealers could possibly influence the fixation of the sale price even with regard to those sales which were made at the factory gate against cash and not on credit. Had there been a difference in the selling price where, for example, special discount was given to the dealers who had given a deposit then it may have been possible to say that there were two different markets and two different prices and that lesser price was being charged for an extraneous consideration-and, in such a case the notional or actual interest could be added. There is nothing to show that there was any special consideration which was shown to the dealers who had given the security deposit. Nor has it been shown by reference to any documents or data that because of the receipt of such deposit the price charged from all the buyers was reduced. There was thus, no justification for dis-regarding the uniform wholesale price which was being charged from all the dealers and adding the element of notional interest of the security deposit to the said price".
4. It was brought to our notice that following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has been consistently taking this view and Shri S.D. Gaur, Consultant also submitted that Board issued a circular as per Circular No. 404/37/88-CX, dated 22-6-1998.
5. In the facts and circumstances, since the issue has already been considered, and concluded by the Apex Court, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we accept the contention of the assessee that notional interest on security deposit cannot be included in the assessable value. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed on this issue with consequential relief.