9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e excisable goods sold by the appellant through their depot or not? - Held that: - The issue is squarely covered by this Tribunals following judgments in the appellants own case Cadbury India Limited Versus C.C.E., Indore [2015 (10) TMI 1949 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the cheque discounting charges are charged by the bank for discounting of cheques to cover for delay in realizatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction to arrive at the assessable value of the excisable goods sold by the appellant through their depot. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The issue is squarely covered by this Tribunals following judgments in the appellants own case: 1. Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad Tribunal Order No. C-II/2243/WZB/2002 dated 25.07.2002 2. Cadbury India Ltd Vs. CCE, Indore 2015 (323) ELT 606 (Tri.-Del) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (142) E.L.T. A187 (S.C.). Honble Bombay High Court in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 396 (Bom.) has also taken the same view. In view of this, the impugned order holding that cheque discounting charges charged by the Revenue are not includible in the assessable value, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
