1993 (6) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enue. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the applicant pleaded that the respondent had charged interest from the customers where there were delayed payments and there were standing instructions to the bank by the respondents as to the charging of interest. He pleaded that where the payment was made within 15 days, no interest was to be paid by the purchaser, but where the payment was made after 15 days i.e. from 15th to 30th the rate of interest was 18% and for more than 30 days it was 24%. He pleaded that in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, this interest has to be included in the assessable value. He pleaded for the grant of stay. 2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, the learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Hon ble Supreme Court which is reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 703 (SC). He pleaded that similar issue had come up before the Supreme Court in the case of Snow White Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 360 (SC) and laid special emphasis on para 14 where there is an observation by the Supreme Court that the issue of review of the decision of the MRF was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court and subject to the order passed in that review matter, such deductions, as may ultimately be held to be deductible be permitted to the appellants upon proof. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR pleaded that since the order has been reviewed and thereafter recalled, the Tribunal should keep the matters till .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an application under Section 35F is maintainable in the case of an aggrieved person and not in the case of revenue. Stay applications filed by the revenue are only dealt with by the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 430. Para No. 8 from the said judgment is reported below : 8. Section 255(5) of the Act does empower the Appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, but it is very doubtful if the power of stay can be spelt out from that provision. In our opinion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. This is particularly so when Section 220(6) deals express .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X