9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal authority holding as follows: ' i) I confirm the following show cause cum demand notices a) V/Adj(SCN)15-317/DC-2001/M-VI/93Dt.28-6-200 demanding Rs. 10,856/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Six Only) and b) V/Adj(SCN)15-317/DC-2001/M-VI/169 Dt.27-9-20001 demanding Rs. 54,676/- (Rs. Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Six only) Being Central Excise duty on interest accrued on advances received against clearances made on or after 01-7- 2000 and order under provision to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 65,532/- (Rs. Sixty five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two only) on M/s. Nitin Castings Ltd under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944. iii) I also order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom any other source at the same price Definitely the notional interest on the advance deposit is an opportunity cost, recognized even in the costing principles. The same therefore, cannot be ignored. In the present case it is not the case that a particular product is sold to different persons at the same price irrespective of whether the buyer has paid the deposit or not or irrespective of the amount of deposit by different customers. These are tailor made items, made and supplied to different customers at different prices depending upon the goods that are supplied In the present case, it is not that the appellant had paid any interest to the customers for the advance amount received by them. It is not the case further that the cost of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Explaination-2 of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. In this connection it is mentioned that revenue has not adduced any evidence to prove that by accepting the advances do not influenced the assessable value. Submitted copy of citation reported at 2000 (119) E.L.T. 582 (TRB) in support of the appeal to be allowed. 3.3 Learned AR reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the Impugned order along with submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Before the original authority appellant has produced the Chartered Accountant certificate dated 23.11.2012 where it has been clarified that as per the book of accounts appellant had not received any inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o establish the nexus with supporting evidence and to quantify the additional considerations in the instant case. On the contrary, the appellants have forcefully argued that the advances taken by them do not depress the value of the goods. They submit that in some cases, they have not taken advance, in some cases the advances taken vary, but in such cases, the same prices have been charged from customers for identical goods, irrespective whether any advances were taken or not taken or advances taken were less or more. Hence, I hold that the appellants are not liable for duty on interest accrued on advances.' 4.3 In view of the above findings we do not find any merits in the impugned order same is set aside. 5.1 Appeal is allowed. ( Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
