ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Electrically Operated Travelling (E.O.T.), Semi-E.O.T., and Hand Operated Travelling (H.O.T.) Cranes classified under Chapter Heading 84.26 of Central Excise Tariff Act. These goods are manufactured as per customer’s specific drawings and design. In the event of refusal by the customer, said goods cannot be sold to any other customer. The appellant receives some part of the price in advance to protect his interest, in case the buyer cancelled the order. The charge against the assessee is that he receives advances/deposits from his customers and the notional interest on such deposits/advances is addable to the assessable value. A similar issue was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench vide its order No. A/1023 to 1033/WZB/2004/C-I dt. 4.6.2004 in the appellants favour. The Bench in the above said order held that in the absence of any evidence to show nexus between the price of the goods and the receipt of advances by the appellants, notional interest on advances cannot be added to the assessable value. The Tribunal applied the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.S.P.L. Industries Ltd. [2003 (154) ELT 3 (S.C.)], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that interest and advances is not to be included in the assessable value of the cranes manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Following the ratio of this decision, we set aside the impugned order, in view of the fact that the department could not establish any nexus between the assessable value and the interest that has accrued on the advances received by the appellants.
3. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.
(Pronounced in Court.