https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120825 The tribunal held that notional interests on advances do not constitute additional consideration from customers and should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish any influence on pricing due to interest-free advances, which was not demonstrated. Citing legal precedent, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned order. The Revenue's plea for remand was also rejected due to lack of evidence showing the advances were utilized as working capital. VP Jyoti Balasundaram delivered the judgment. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:47:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120825 The tribunal held that notional interests on advances do not constitute additional consideration from customers and should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish any influence on pricing due to interest-free advances, which was not demonstrated. Citing legal precedent, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned order. The Revenue's plea for remand was also rejected due to lack of evidence showing the advances were utilized as working capital. VP Jyoti Balasundaram delivered the judgment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120825