1998 (1) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on safe deposit lockers.
2. Uniformity in granting trade discount.
3. Classification of sales as wholesale or retail.
4. Applicability of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an Order confirming duty demand on safe deposit lockers cleared by the appellant during a specific period. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing safe deposit lockers, filed a price list with a trade discount of 14%. However, discrepancies were found in granting the trade discount to all customers, leading to a demand for differential duty.

2. The appellant argued that the trade discount was not uniformly granted, especially in sales to banks and branches. The Department had filed appeals against previous orders favoring the appellant's stance, which were remanded to decide if sales to banks were wholesale or retail.

3. The Tribunal examined the nature of sales to banks and branches, determining that sales to banks were retail, while sales to branches and dealers were wholesale. The wholesale price at the factory gate included a 14% trade discount, which was not applicable to retail sales. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of classifying sales among wholesalers and consumers in retail.

4. The Central Excise duty is payable based on the assessable value determined under the Central Excise Act, 1944, which considers the normal price at which goods are sold in wholesale trade. Sales without or with less discount were deemed retail sales, and the approved wholesale price at the factory gate should not be affected by such sales.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, ruling in favor of the appellant as there were sales in wholesale at the factory gate with the approved wholesale prices. The judgment highlighted the distinction between wholesale and retail sales in determining the assessable value for Central Excise duty, ultimately allowing the appeal.