ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the respondent company and Sri N.K. Mishra, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that the issue involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Gomti Carbon-Di-Oxide and Ors. v. CCE, Jaipur and (vice-versa) reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 565 (T-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 1039 (CEGAT – LB).
2. The Revenue has denied the benefit of abatement in respect of Interest on Receivables, which is included in the factory gate sale price, inasmuch as the respondents get payments from their customers after two/three months. Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant has brought to our notice a number of decisions holding that the interest on such receivables is an admissible deduction. On the other hand, we find that the Revenue in their Memo of Appeal has merely stated that the interest has to be charged separately and if it is in-built in the price, the deduction is not permissible.
3. We find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue, and inasmuch as the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision (supra), we find no merits in the Revenue’s appeal and reject the same. Cross Objection also gets disposed of.