9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thrice. The first order of the Supreme Court on appellant's Civil Appeal No. 1285/76 is dated 12-7-1985. Dealing with the appellant's claim for deduction on account of freight on cigarettes, bank charges in discounting the bills and advertisement and publicity expenses, their Lordships observed : "As far as the first item is concerned, it is fairly conceded by the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the judgment delivered by us in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International's case, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) = 1984 (1) SCR 347, it is not possible for him to contend that the amount representing freight on cigarettes is includible in the wholesale cash price in the assessment of duty." On this basis, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not to be put forth In view of this stand taken by the adjudicating authority, assessee moved their Lordships of the Supreme Court for getting clarification of the order dated 19-7-1995. That petition was disposed of on 28-2-1997. Their Lordships made the position clear by stating : "We clarify that other claims earlier made were not the subject matter of our order and we have not denied or rejected them." Pursuant to the first order of the Supreme Court dated 12-7-1985, assessee filed affidavits before the Supreme Court claiming deductions not only on account of freight, bank charges in discounting the bills and advertising, publicity and sales distribution expenses but also on account of expenses incurred in providing secondary pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight" in finding out the assessable value. 4. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case, the adjudicating authority disallowed deduction towards interest and bank charges on bill discounting from the wholesale cash price for arriving at the assessable value. This approach made by the adjudicating authority cannot be supported. Law on this point is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Gomti Carbon Dioxide v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 565. In that decision, this Tribunal was following the principles stated by the Apex Court in Govt. of India v. M.R.F. Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. Since the authority has not followed the correct principles applicable to the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues remitted back to him, namely, claim of deduction on account of interest and bank charges and deduction of expenditure incurred on secondary packing as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this final order. Learned counsel representing the appellant has assured his client's full cooperation with the adjudicating authority for speedy disposal of the case. 7. As against the claim of more than rupees one crore by way of refund, the adjudicating authority imposed duty liability of Rs. 69,22,874.48 in the impugned order. So, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is remitted back for reconsideration and de novo decision. 8. Appeal is allowed as indicated above. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
