Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Coramandel Fertilizers Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 65/2007 (V-I) CE dated 03/08/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

CORAMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD., SRIHARIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant

None.

For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02/09/2015

Date of Decision: 02/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21857 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to decide the Revenues appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (A), inasmuch as the issue stands covered by various decisions.

2. After hearing learned DR, we find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the notional interest on the advances received by the respondent from their buyer for the manufacture and installation of the plant would be includable in the assessable value of the goods or not. The appellate authority has extended relief to the respondent by following various decisions of the Tribunal as also of various Courts including the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. I.S.P.L Industries Ltd.: 2003 (154) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). It stands held in the said decision that where price is not influenced by the fact of interest free advance, notional interest cannot be added to the assessable value of the goods. Revenue in the memo of appeal has not advanced any argument or evidence to show that the price was affected by such advances. In such a scenario, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (A). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

2