2007 (1) TMI 5 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation(Central Excise)-While Calculating the assessable value interest element should be deducted from the price of the product After considering all the fact adjudicating authority give decision against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Deductibility of interest on receivables from assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of previous court judgments on similar issues.
3. Consideration of interest inbuilt in the price as deductible from the assessable value.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard a set of appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The main issue revolved around whether interest on receivables, inbuilt in the price and not charged separately, is deductible from the assessable value. The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing activities falling under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, claimed interest on receivables as an abatement based on a previous court decision. The Revenue issued show cause notices demanding differential duty, contesting the previous judgment. The Authority-in-Original rejected the claims, leading to appeals and remand orders. The Commissioner set aside the original order, citing a subsequent judgment reaffirming the original decision. The Tribunal relied on a previous judgment involving a similar issue and allowed the deduction of interest inbuilt in the price from the assessable value.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that interest inbuilt in the price, not charged separately, was deductible from the assessable value, as supported by previous court judgments. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue did not appeal a similar case previously, leading to the finality of that decision. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that the Revenue cannot take a contrary stand after accepting principles laid down in earlier cases. The Court concluded that the issue at hand was settled by a previous judgment and the lack of appeal by the Revenue in a similar case. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, emphasizing the consistency in legal interpretation and precedents.