9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (T) Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Rajesh Kumar, T.R., Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - The assessee M/s. Bangalore Paints Limited filed two refund claims, for Rs. 6,45,313/- and Rs. 1,56,637.78 pertaining to payment of duty during the periods 6/81 to 3/87 and 4/87 to 8/87. The claim was on the ground that they had paid duty on interest element in the price of goods cleared. There were outstanding amounts against their sales and clearance. The refund claims were rejected by order dated 14-7-2000 of the Deputy Commissioner. He found that refund claims were for interest on sale value for the credit period between date of sale and the date of payment in credit sales. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio of the decision of this Bench in Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE in Final Order No. 785, 786/07, dated 26-6-2007 [2007 (216) E.L.T 30 (T)]. The appellant in the instant case has not established that their case was not one of allowing cash discount of a, certain amount for cash sale and sale without that discount for credit sale. She submitted that the respondent was not eligible for the refund claimed in view of the ratio of A. Infrastructure Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2004 (167) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.)]. The ld. Consultant cited the following case law in support of the impugned order. (1) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 350 (Tri.-Mumbai) (2) CCE, Kolkata-II v. Andaman Timber Industries. - 2004 (165) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyer. Since this is the amount received subsequent to the sale from the depots and does not fall within the ambit of any of the expenses held includible in Bombay Tyre International, it is clearly excludible. The claim for this deduction is, therefore, allowed." 3.2 The respondents have not established that the price realized in the impugned transactions contained an element of interest in-built therein and charged. Therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any "interest on receivables" from sale price for the purpose of determining the assessable value of the impugned goods in view of the decision of the apex Court in A. Infrastructure Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) in the above judgment the Apex Court observed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
