( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner a Public Limited Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of photocopying machines, which are being sold in retail. ( 2 ) RULE 6 (a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (briefly, the rules) runs as under : "rule 6. If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under Rule 4 or Rule 5, and (a) where such goods are sold by the assessee in retail the value shall be based on the retail price of such goods reduced by such amount as is necessary and reasonable in the opinion of the proper officer to arrive at the price at which the assessee would have sold such goods in the course of wholesale made to a person other than a related person : provided that in determining the amount of reduction, due regard shall be had to the nature of the excisable goods the trade practice in that commodity and other relevant factors" ( 3 ) SECTION 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act for short) runs as follows : "4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this action, be deemed to be (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale:" ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the goods manufactured by it are sold in retail and, therefore, the assessable value of the goods is to be determined under Rule 6 (a) and not under section 4 (1) (a ). ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the question for consideration is whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are assessable under Rule 6 (a) or under Section 4 (1) (a ). ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the question for consideration is whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are assessable under Rule 6 (a) or under Section 4 (1) (a ). This question came up for consideration before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT) in appeal filed by the department and then by a judgment dated 31-7-1989, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the Tribunal held that the assessable value of goods would be determined taking the value of each photocopy machine and reducing the same by 28% of the invoice value. Against such decision of the Tribunal, the department had gone in appeal before the Supreme Court, which by judgment dated 17-11-1995, Annexure-RA-2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit, dismissed the appeals of the Department. The department applied for stay order, which too was refused by the supreme Court. After the stay order having been refused, it was the duty of the department to give effect to the Tribunals order and that is what the judicial discipline demands. ( 6 ) THE department issued the impugned show cause notice dated 27-10-1994, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE contention of the Standing Counsel is that the effect to the order of the Tribunal could not be given, as the petitioner failed to furnish necessary information/details. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 27-10-1994, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, is quashed and the adjudicating authority (Respondent No. 1) is directed to determine the assessable value of the goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner in retail giving effect to the aforesaid Tribunals order after obtaining necessary details/information from the petitioner. .