ORDER
Shri Jeet Ram Kait
1. These are all Revenue appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 718 – 739/96 (CBE) dated 27.11.96. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue on the ground that the respondents have accepted the deposits without interest, therefore they have to pay duty on such national interest amount also.
2. Ld. S.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue requested that all these cases may be remanded back for examining whether the value has depressed because of accepting the deposits on which there would have been national interest.
3. Ld. Counsel has invited out attention to paras 3 & 4 of the Order-in-Appeal which is extracted herein below:-
3. In the grounds of appeals filed by the appellants which are more or less similar, it has been claimed that the raw materials required for the manufacturing activities are being purchased generally and stored before purchase orders are received except for a few items of specific nature and that it is from this bulk stock that the appellants draw the materials for the manufacturing activity and that the purchases have not been made exclusively out of the advances received from the customers. Most of the appellants have categorically stated that they do not receive advance deposits from all the customers and that the quantum of advance is very low compared to the turn over of the company and that the price is uniform and does not vary for a particular item whether the customer pays advance or not and that once the prices are agreed to as per the contract the appellants are obliged to supply the goods at the same price even if the costs of raw materials vary. It has also been argued that the earnest deposit received was purely to ensure the contractual binding as per the Trade practice since the goods are tailor made and are not of the type which are mass-produced and delivered of the shelf and the amount of advance received is not taken into account while arriving at the contract price; therefore the question of the interest free advance influencing the price did not arise; Further such a concept had not been in their minds or the customers
4. In the light of the above I have no reason to change my views taken in the earlier orders in appeals referred supra. I therefore hold that the Assistant Commissioners’ orders here cannot be sustained in law in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that the advance taken by the appellants had in fact depressed the price or that the appellants had derived benefit by receipt of such advance, particularly in the absence of quantification thereof. The impugned orders do not survive in law in the light of the judicial pronouncements as above and the demands confirmed have to be set aside.
The Ld.Counsel has also relied on this Tribunal judgement in the matter of Fort William Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Calcutta-IV as reported in 2000(122) ELT 174 (Trib.): CCE New Delhi Vs. Schenck Avery Ltd. as reported in 2000 (119) ELT 582 (Trib.); ACC Machinery Company Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-VI(Trib.) as reported in 2000 (117) ELT 231 (Trib.) and CCE Coimbatore Vs. Festo Elgi (P) Ltd. as reported in 1998 (100) ELT 175 (Trib.) The Ld.Consultant has stated that whether they have taken advance or not, they have charged the same price from each customer and the advance has not depressed price to any extent and therefore, the same is not includible in the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944.
4. We have considered carefully the submissions made by the Ld. SDR and the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has already examined this matter and has given detailed findings in paras 3 & 4 of his order which have been extracted supra and therefore, respectfully following the various Tribunal judgments cited above by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed and appeals filed by the department are dismissed.
(Pronounced & dictated in open Court)