JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVANREDDY, J.-

Leave granted in SLPs (C) Nos. 10108 of 1980 and 4041 of 1981.

2. Having enunciated the principles governing the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood before andafter the Amendment Act XXII of 1973 in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1984) 1 SCC 467, this Court (the Bench comprising P.N. Bhagwati, R. S. Pathak and A.N. Sen, JJ.) took up individual cases for disposal on 3-5-1984. The appeals and petitions were allowed under what are called "format orders" and the matters remitted to assessing authorities with a direction to quantify and redetermine the permissible deductions in accordance with the law enunciated by them in their opinion in Bombay Tyre International (1984) 1 SCC 467 as clarified in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (P) Ltd. (1984) 17 ELT 329 (SC) Certain other directions were also given with respect to the manner in which the assessing authorities were to proceed in the matter of determining the value to which it is not necessary to refer at this stage. The Assistant Collectors (Central Excise) accordingly passed orders allowing certain claims for deductions and rejecting certain others. In terms of the format orders, the assessing authorities forwarded the orders of assessment made by them to this Court along with the objections filed by the assessees in each case. The Revenue too filed certain objections. The matters were posted before a Bench of this Court comprising P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and V. Khalid, J. for finally determining and deciding several issues arising between the parties. By their judgment dated 20-12-1986, the Bench disposed of the appeals (Asstt. CCE v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1986 Supp SCC 751. Contending that the said judgment is not in accord with the judgment in Bombay Tyre International the Revenue filed review petitions, which came to be allowed by a Bench comprising R.S. Pathak, C.J. and L.M. Sharma, J. on 1-5-1989 Reported at (1989) 3 SCC 238. By this order, the judgment and order dated 20-12-1986 1986 Supp SCC 751 was recalled and the appeals restored to their original number. It was directed that the appeals be listed again for fresh consideration. It is pursuant to the order dated 1-5-1989 Reported at (1989) 3 SCC 238 that these appeals have now come up before us for final disposal. Section 4 as it stood before the Amendment Act XXII of 1973 and as it stands now

3. Prior to the Amendment Act XXII of 1973, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1975, Section 4 read thus:

"4. Determination of value for the purposes of duty.- Where under this Act, any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the article, such value be deemed to be-

(a) the wholesale cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the place of manufacture or production, or if a wholesale market does not exist for such article at such place, at the nearest place where such market exists, or

(b) where such price is not ascertainable, the price at which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold by the manufacturer or producer, or his agent, at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from such factory or other premises for delivery at the place of manufacture or production, or if such article is not sold or is not capable of being sold at such place, at any other place nearest thereto.

Explanation.- In determining the price of any article under this section no abatement or deduction shall be allowed except in respect of trade discount and the amount of duty payable at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or other premises aforesaid."

4. This section was practically a reproduction of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Ac