9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (J)]. The present appeal involves the following disputed Questions of valuation :- I. Claim for deduction on account of Central Excise duty from All India Uniform Wholesale Prices for determining the value of footwear for deciding their eligibility to get the exemption under Notification Nos. 171/67-C.E. and/or 49/86-C.E. II. Allowability of the following expenses from All India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 171/67-C.E. has been denied to them. Following the same, we hold that the appellants plea about the applicability of the notification in question is not sustainable. 3. However, Shri S.K. Bagaria brings it to our notice that while the earlier order, the benefit of Modvat credit available to them on the various inputs used i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (77) E.L.T. 433]. As the issue is no more res integra on these two points, we hold that the deduction on account of these expences is not available to the appellants. 5. As regards the interest on receivables/Sundry Debtors, we find that the same is decided in favour of the appellants by the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of MRF referred (supra). Following the same, deduction on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Supreme Court in the MRF case, has held that all the depots expenses have to be taken into account. Insurance of goods at the depots would be covered by the said judgment. We find that the Apex Court s judgment in the case of MRF, does not deal specifically with the deductions on account of insurance of goods lying at the depots. This judgment was not before the adjudicating authority at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
