Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. vs Cce on 29 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(113)ECC246, 2006ECR246(TRI.-CHENNAI), 2007(208)ELT401(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against rejection, by the lower authorities, of a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 6,07,445/- filed by the party on the ground that they had erroneously paid such duty on 'interest on receivables' which according to them was not includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared for home consumption during the period January 1989 to March 1990. After examining the records, we note that both the lower authorities found that the appellants had not actually collected interest from their buyers for belated payments of price of the goods. The authorities held that, for claiming exclusion of interest from the assessable value, the assessee ought to have collected such interest from their buyers. Both the authorities took the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MRF Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of the case.
2. We have heard both sides and considered their submissions. Learned Counsel for the appellants produced a specimen of the relevant invoices and we have perused the same. There is nothing in this invoice to indicate that the price of goods shown in this document includes any element of interest. On the other hand, one of the footnotes in this document reads thus:
Interest at the rate of 16% will be charged for non-payment within 30 days from the date of invoice.
It is thus evident that any interest is not inbuilt in the price of goods given in the relevant invoices. The submission made by learned Counsel to the contra and the reliance placed by him on Final Order Nos. 1322 & 1323/2005 dated 15.9.2005 passed by this Bench in Appeal Nos. E/204 & 209/1999 [GEC Alsthom India Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy], wherein interest on receivables was shown to have been inbuilt in the price of goods, cannot be accepted. In the case of Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta cited by learned Counsel, it was found that interest on receivables was inbuilt in the price and accordingly it was held to be deductible from assessable value. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
3. On the other hand, the reliance placed by learned SDR on the decision of this Bench in Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, Tricky 2006 (135) ECR 192 (Tri. Chennai) has to be accepted inasmuch as, in that case, it was found upon perusal of a specimen invoice, that a credit period of 21 days was allowed but no interest was claimed and accordingly it was held that 'interest on receivables' was not to be deducted from the assessable value of the goods. In the case of Castrol India Ltd. (supra), the Bench found that the apex Court's ruling in MRF's case was not applicable. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was perfectly right when he held that the ratio of the decision in MRF's case was not applicable to the case on hand.
4. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)