9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for adjournment at that time. Since the issue falls in a short compass, we decline the request for adjournment and take up the appeal itself for disposal. In regard to addition of the interest accrued on the advances taken by the appellants, we have in a number of cases which had come up before us remanded the matter for denovo consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box India Ltd., reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 which has been interpreted by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India v. Lakshmi Machines Ltd., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 799. In this regard, we have in para 6 of our order in the case of M/s. MIL Controls v. CCE in Appeal Nos. E/1517 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly justified in taking the view that charging of separate price for the metal containers supplied to M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. could not stand justified u/s 4(1) (a) proviso and therefore, to that separate price charged from the Ponds (I) Ltd., the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee on interest free loan was required to be reloaded by hiking the price charged from M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. to that extent. Contention No. 2 also, therefore, fails and is rejected. Therefore, it is necessary for the Department to point out by the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee on the interest free loan. It is only the benefit that has been drawn by the assessee has to be loaded by hiking price charged. That being so, the circular issued by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. So far as the addition of the charges towards testing of the goods which is done at the premises of the customers is concerned we observe that it has not been shown that this testing was in lieu of any testing to be done in the appellant s factory. 4. The learned JDR, Shri S. Murugandy has pointed out that in terms of the contract, the appellants are bound by the test results done at the customer s premises and therefore it should be presumed that the testing at the customer s premises was part of the contract of sale and was in lieu of the testing to be done at the appellant s factory. He has pleaded that the testing at the customer s premises is for the marketability of the goods. 5. We have considered the pleas made. We observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
