ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In all these three appeals filed by the Revenue the question of law and facts arises hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.
2. In the impugned order Commissioner has noted that the issue before him pertains to the following :
(a) abatement towards discount on damages
(b) Bank charges
(c) Interest on receivables.
He has noted that the assessee’s own case the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 720(T) and further has noted that the assessments were of provisional nature and that the assessments are required to be finalised and to give abatement to the three charges. However, he has allowed the assessee’s appeal. Revenue is aggrieved only with regard to the discount on damages in transit, interest on receivables.
3. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue ld. DR Shri C. Mani submits that the Revenue is not aggrieved with the grant of abatement and bank charges as the issue is covered in terms of the Apex Court judgment. He further files a copy of the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE. v. I.P.F. Vikram India Ltd. reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) and submits that Revenue is not aggrieved with the observations that the assessments are provisional and required to be finalised. However, he submits that the order passed by the Commissioner granting discount to the damages is not a correct order in terms of the above Apex Court judgment and the same is not required to be granted. He seeks for modification of the order. He submits that interest on receivables is also required to be excluded. He cites large number of judgments and he concedes this point.
4. Appearing on behalf of the Respondents ld. Consultant Shri K.S. Venkatramani who agrees with the submissions made by the ld. DR and submits further that the discount on damages alone is not required to be extended in terms of the judgment cited above. However, on the other two points there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.
5. On a careful consideration and upon perusal of the cited judgments we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the assessee is entitlement for abatement towards discount on damages in transit in terms of the judgments cited by the ld. DR and the judgments rendered in the assessees’ own case. Therefore, the impugned order on this ground is modified and it is held that the assessee is not entitled to claim abatement towards discount of damages. Insofar as the abatement of bank charges are concerned, there is no appeal preferred by the Revenue on this point. The Commissioner’s findings on grant of interest on receivables is also a correct order. Further his observation that the assessments are still provisional and requires to be finalised is not challenged by the Revenue and this portion of the impugned order is confirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent by holding that the assessees are not entitled to the abatement towards discount on damages in transit. The impugned order is modified and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.