9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactured Copper and Copper Alloys, billets, rods. During the course of scrutiny of the records of the appellants it was noticed that they were manufacturing tailor-made goods and were receiving advances against the order of supply of such goods. These advances were being kept by the appellants for more than six to eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Department therefore, alleged that the interest which would have been earned on these advances should be included in the assessable value in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 120 (Tri.). 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the demand was for the period from 1-1-1988 to 22-1-1992 and the SCN was issued on 28-5-1996 whereas the other demand was for the period from 23-1-1992 to 30-6-1993 and the SCN was issued on 28-5-1996. He submitted that both the demands were hit by limitation inasmuch as there was no suppression or mis-statement. As the appellants were being assessed under the facility of invoice based assessment and that in each invoice the advance was being mentioned and debited from the total sales value for arriving at the net amount payable by their customers. The ld. Counsel therefore, submitted that on limitation, the demands were time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We note that since advance was not affecting price charged by manufacturers, the Department did not marshal any evidence to show that a part of the price being received as advance and being retained for a short period had been or would have been taken into consideration for fixing the uniform price for all buyers. In the circumstances it does not appear probable that this factor had to any extent depressed or otherwise affected the price charged. That being so, there was no extra consideration received, over and above the declared price. The notional interest on advances is, therefore, not includible in the assessable value. 8. On the question of limitation, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
