9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been directed to take fresh decision on the valuation issue in accordance with law laid down in A. Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2004 (167) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. [2007 (209) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lubricating oils/preparations. In respect of the goods cleared by them from April-December, 1996, they deducted Rs. 1.696 per unit quantity from the sale price to arrive at the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty. The component of deduction towards 'interest on receivables' was Rs. 0.563 per unit quantity. This deduction was disapproved by the lower authorities who demanded di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countant's certificate. The question considered by the apex court was whether the interest that was payable on the sale price of the goods, which was not yet paid by the customer, was built into the price structure and should be deducted from the value of the goods. Their Lordships held that the question whether the price structure itself included the interest charged or not was a matter for establishment on evidence. In the case of Novapan Industries Ltd. (supra) considered by the apex court, the question was whether the amount of interest on receivables was deductible from the sale price where such interest was inbuilt in the price and was not charged separately. Their Lordships found that the issue was already covered by the judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %". Obviously, the difference between the prices of a given commodity in the two invoices reflects the cash discount which was allowed to the buyer who chose to take delivery of the goods against cash payment on the date of sale itself. The same is the position emerging from other invoices produced by learned counsel. Everywhere, the unit price of a given commodity shown in the C.O.D. invoice is less by1.75% of the unit price of the same goods shown in the credit sale invoice. It would thus appear that the price mentioned in a credit sale invoice for a given product is the normal price and the one mentioned in the C.O.D. invoice is the discounted price. None of the credit sale invoices indicates any claim of interest on receivables. Invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of interest inbuilt therein and having found no evidence of such interest having been separately recovered by the assessee from the customers, we hold that, on the facts of this case, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of any "interest on receivables" from sale price for the purpose of determining the assessable value of the subject goods and consequently they were liable to pay duty on the differential value of the goods. The assessee's case does not pass the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MRF case (supra) and reiterated in Novapan Industries (supra). Appeal No. E/V-269/1999 gets dismissed. 7. In the remaining appeal, there are two applications of the assessee (appellant) coming up for consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
