CCE Vs. GREAVES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three appeals have been filed by Revenue against Order -in -Appeal No. 15/98 (M -I) dated 24.2.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai inasmuch as he has held that in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that advances taken by the appellants had, in fact, depressed the price or that the appellant had derived benefit by receipt of such advance particularly in the absence of quantification thereof, the notional interest on receipt of such advances are not includible in the assessable value.

(2.) Ld. DR Shri C. Mani appearing on behalf Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and has relied on the Law Ministry's opinion and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. CCE Chennai and VST Industries v. CCE, Hyderabad and the Board's circular mentioned therein in the grounds of appeal and has prayed that the appeal filed by Revenue against the importers may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.

(3.) Ld. Advocate Shri S.S. Radhakrishnan has invited our attention to para -4 of the OIA in which the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that the advances taken by the appellants had, in fact, depressed the price and that appellant had derived benefit by receipt of such advance particularly in the absence of quantification thereof. He, therefore, submitted that that the notional interest on such advances are not includible in the assessable value. He also invited our attention to the final order No. 524 to 528/2002 dated 23.4.2002 [See 2002 (105) ECR 181 (T)] in their own case and this Bench has rejected the appeals filed by Revenue and sustained the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.