Judgment:
1. Appellants are manufacturers of photocopier. The photocopiers are sold only in retail. The issue involved in the present appeal is the valuation of photocopiers sold in retail for levy of Central Excise duty. The period involved is prior to the replacement of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 1-7-2000.
2. The appellants claimed deduction of 28% from the retail price for the purpose of fixing assessable value for their photocopiers. This was on the basis that their competitors, namely, Modi Xerox Ltd. had been allowed deduction at the same percentage. This claim of theirs has been rejected in the order-in-original as well as in the order-in-appeal.
The present appeal is directed against these orders.
3. Arguing the appeal before us today, the learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that during the relevant period goods were liable to be assessed at their wholesale price (Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.)There is no dispute that the goods were being sold in retail. Therefore, deduction was required to be made from the sale price to arrive at the assessable value which was to be wholesale price. The learned counsel submitted that in the case of their competitors, namely, Modi Xerox Ltd. and M/s. B.E. Electronic Machines Pvt. Ltd. deduction at 28% had been allowed and the Supreme Court had approved the deduction at 28% in the case of Modi Xerox Ltd. vide the Apex Court's order in the case of Modi Xerox Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Customs and Central Excise, 1998 (98) ELT 12 (SC). The learned counsel took us to our final order No 822-823/99-A dated 9-6-99 in the case of Modi Olivetti Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Meerut wherein we held that assessable value could be based only on the basis of wholesale price.
The learned counsel also submitted that deduction at the rate as applicable to comparable goods produced by the other manufacturers is the method stipulated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in its instruction F. No. 312/1/75-CX 10 dated 8-8-75. The learned counsel submitted that since their competitors were being allowed deduction at 28% by the Central Excise Authority from the retail price for the purpose of working out the wholesale price, allowing deduction at the same rate to them also was fully justified. He, therefore, urged that appeal be allowed, permitting 28% deduction from the retail price for the purpose of determining assessable value.
4. During the relevant period under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, assessment was to be made on the wholesale price. In case the sale was in retail, wholesale price was to be worked out after giving the required deduction. Central Board of Excise and Customs under its instruction F. No. 312/1/75-CX 10 dated 8-8-75 advised field formations that deduction could be allowed based on the comparable position of other manufacturers. In the present case, the appellants' competitors were being given deduction of 28% from the retail price for the purpose of fixing the assessable value of their goods. The goods manufactured by the appellants are also photocopiers. We, therefore, find it appropriate that deduction at the same rate be allowed to the appellants also. This is all the more so, since deduction is being allowed at standard rates by the Revenue in the case of all goods which are being assessed on the basis of MRP. There is no justification for not giving deduction at the same rate to all manufacturers in the same industry. It is, accordingly, ordered that the photocopiers manufactured by the appellants be assessed to duty after allowing 28% deduction from retail price. Consequential relief, if any, shall be allowed upon such reassessment of the goods. Appeal is, thus, allowed after setting aside the impugned orders.