9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that notional interest on advances received from buyers did not form part of the assessable value of the goods sold to them by the assessees. The appellate authorities, in the impugned orders, relied on the apex Court's ruling in VST Industries Limited Vs. CCL, Hyderabad, 1998 (24) RLT 221 (SC)=1998 (97) ELT 395 (SC) and a few decisions of the Tribunal as also the Board's Circular No. 404/37/98-CX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se averments and relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Hafa Hoists and Cranes, 2005 (66) RLT 753 (CESTAT-Mum.)=2005(180) ELT 510 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it was held that, where the goods under valuation were manufactured as per specifications of Customers, the burden to prove that any advance received by the manufacturer from customer had no nexus with the price charged was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 492 (Tri.) accordingly, it was held that it was the Department's burden to show that there was nexus between the price of goods and any advance paid by the buyer so that notional interest on such advance could be included in the assessable value of the goods even where the goods were tailor-made. 2. After considering the submissions made by both sides and the decisions cited by them, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hold that notional interest on advance received by the respondents was not be included in the assessable value of the goods in question. In our view, the decision cited by ld. SDR is per incuriam inasmuch as it did not take into account the view consistently taken by the Tribunal in its earlier decisions and did not take into consideration the Board's Circular No. 404/37/98-CX.dated 22.6.98. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
