9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai [for short "the Tribunal"]. 2.The point in issue is, as to whether the amount of interest on receivables is deductible from the assessable value where such interest is inbuilt in the price and is not charged separately. 3.The Assessee, namely, M/s. Novapan Industries Ltd., the respondent herein, is engaged in the manufacture of "melamine based particle boards and plain particle boards" falling under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4.While filing the price declaration, the Respondent opted for provisional assessment and claimed interest on receivables as an abatement on the basis of the decision of this Court in Government of India Ors. v. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hable on facts and was not applicable to the present case. 10.The respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals which was accepted and the Order-in-Original was set aside, against which the Revenue filed the appeals before the Tribunal which have been dismissed by the impugned order. 11.In our view, the point in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in MRF case 2[(1986) Suppl. SCC 751] read with the subsequent order passed in the Review Petition reported in 1(1995) 4 SCC 349. 12.The Tribunal in its order has relied upon its earlier judgment in ICI India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [2000 (91) ECR 152 (T)] in which the similar issue was involved and the Tribunal had taken the view that inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des mat the Department did not file an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in ICI India's case (supra). Thus, the same has attained finality. 14.In view of a catena of decisions of this Court, it is settled law that the department having accepted the principles laid down in the earlier case cannot be permitted to take a contra stand in the subsequent cases [See: Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.)], Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.)] etc.] 15.The point in issue being concluded by the decision of this Court in MRF case (supra) and the fact that the Revenue did not file an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in ICI India case (supra), we do not find any merit in these app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
