Per K.S. Venkataramani, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.2.1987 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The facts briefly are as follows:-

M/s. International Computers (India) Manufacturing Co. Limited are engaged in the manufacture of office machines and apparatus and computers falling under tariff item 33D and 33DD respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. The goods are assessable to duty on advalorem basis. The appellants filed price lists and had claimed deductions on account of marketing and administration costs, finance costs, selling Profits, and excise duty. In addition they submitted that packing is entirely to the account of the buyer and, therefore, does not form part of the assessable value and is, therefore, not shown in the price. The price lists were approved provisionally. After the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Bombay Tyre International case, the Assistant Collector proceeded to finalise the price lists and show cause notices had been issued which intended to disallow the deductions claimed in account of marketing and administration costs, finance costs, selling profit etc., the Assistant Collector after following the adjudication proceedings allowed deduction on account of duty and disallowed the rest. He also confirmed the demands for Rs.43,13,683.70 and Rs. 1,51,60,731.16. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector's order leading to the present appeal.

2. Shri T.K. Ramasubramanayam, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants sell the computers directly to customers who put them to use. There had been orders by the Assistant Collector dated 20.7.89 directing them to file price list in Part V prescribed for cases where there is direct retail sales to customers. This recognises the appellants sales pattern in which case, the learned Counsel urged, the Assistant Collector was bound to grant suitable deductions from the retail price in terms of Rule 6(a) of Valuation Rules and arrive at reduced wholesale price and in fact on an appeal from the Appellant Collector's order, the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 20.4.90 had remanded the matter with this very direction to the Assistant Collector. The learned Counsel contended U that the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) herein endorses the Assistant Collector's decision without disclosing why the deductions claimed from the retail price are not permissible. If they were to sell the goods through wholesale dealers, the learned Counsel pointed out, they would not have had to incur these elements of cost, and their price would have been lower, There is also evidence of sales according to the general practice in the trade as seen in their sales to Public Sector Customers like LIC to whom higher discount had been offered on account of bulk orders. Such discounts it was contended should be allowed. It was submitted that the price lists for the subsequent period the Department had allowed such J deductions. The learned Counsel also cited and relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Modi Xerox Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 481 that sale even of one machine to a customer is sale in retail. In the same context, the learned Counsel cited Government of India order in revision in the case of

Kelvinator of India Ltd. - 1982 E.L.T. 552 (G.O.I.). It was further argued by the learned Counsel that the lower authorities have erred in including the packing cost in the assessable value. The goods were packed in the extra packing of wooden crates only on specific request of customers who wanted it for protection of the goods in transport. Hence the cost of such packing, the learned Counsel contended, is excludable from the assessable value.

3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative Smt. C.G. Lal contended that the Supreme Court in Para-33 of its decision in Union of India Vs. Bombay Tyre International -1983 E.L.T. 1896 had obser