Per G.P. Agarwal: M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. are the manufacturers of Metal Containers falling under T.I.46 of Central Excise Tariff. They supply Metal Containers to Cosmetic Manufacturers such as M/s. Ponds (I) Limited, M/s. T.S.R. & Co., M/s. Calcutta Chemicals, M/s. Mysore Cosmetics, M/s. Millet Roachas etc. M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. are the major buyer lifting 90% of their requirements of Metal Containers from the said M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. filed their Price Lists for the Metal Containers declaring the normal price in terms of proviso (1) to Section 4(1)(a) on the basis of the contracts/purchase orders of the buyers, i.e. Cosmetic Manufacturers. During the course of verification of records of M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. it was noticed by the department that they had entered into agreement dated 1.9.80, 10.6.81 and 13.5.82 with M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. All these agreements were not made known to the department at the time of filing of the price Lists for approval. On perusal of the said agreements it was noticed that gross sale price of the Metal Containers was indicated in the agreement and certain abatements from the same towards (1) Quantity rebate fixed On slabs basis dependent on quantity proposed to be purchased by M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd., (2) Special Body Maker rebate and (3) Cash discount at 2%, of the price arrived at after deducting items (1) and (2) above from gross selling price and the net price arrived at. However, in the Price Lists filed by M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. for approval they had quoted only the net price at which the Metal Containers were sold in the course of wholesale trade instead of quoting the gross sale price as stated in the agreement and claiming the deductions towards items (1), (2) and (3) as stated above, to arrive at the assessable value and to enable the department to verify the claim and allow the admissible discounts and approve the assessable value. Disparities between die sale price adopted for M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd and the price adopted for other buyers namely M/s. T.S.R. & Co., M/s. Calcutta Chemicals etc. were also noticed inspite of the fact that the Metal Containers contracted for and supplied by M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. were almost according to the department, identical in their specification, material etc. According to the department it also appeared that among the buyers (i.e. Cosmetics Manufacturers) M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd were given special and favoured treatment by way of deductions in the form of discount/rebate from the wholesale price while other buyers were not uniformly given such discounts/rebate in the normal course of their wholesale trade. It was also noticed that as per the said three agreements totally an amount of Rs.375 lakhs was advanced by M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd to M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. to be used for specific purpose of covering raw and ancillary materials and keep them in stock sufficient to meet minimum 3 or 4 months requirements of the buyers namely M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. From this advance the department opined that M/s. Metal Box India Ltd had obtained the said advance for utilising the same as their capital for the purchase of raw material thereby effectively supplementing their capital and in consideration thereof has shown a reduction in the sale price to M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. and the extent of such deduction was not reasonable justified since the interest payable on the advance would definitely have been loaded on the cost of manufacture and sale price, had the advance been obtained from any other independent source. In this premises the Department tentatively concluded that the gross price as indicated in the aforesaid agreement had to be taken without deductions but with the addition of the interest @ 18% accruing to the advances made by M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. to arrive at the assessable value and duty should have been paid on the value so arrived. Since M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. had paid duty on the net price after deductions of discount/reba