TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to 21-10-2002 at the request of the appellants. 2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate, for the appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner on the ground of Jurisdiction, limitation as well as on merit. He has very ably taken us through the history of the case involving duty liability of the appellants from 1-11-74 to 31-3-96 spanning over a period of over 21 years and its progress right up to the Apex Court twice. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in its order dated 20-7-95 permitted the appellants to file appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to dispose those appeals, without raising the question of limitation on merits, in the light of the Apex Court's decision in GOI v. MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged either by Revenue or by the appellant and has therefore become final. We, however, observe that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is of no assistance as she appears to have merely paraphrased the Apex Court's decision on the issue without giving a specific finding on the facts of the appellant's case. She has also not quantified the duty liability of the appellants. 5. Subsequently the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 31-3-97 has given a finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed deduction of interest on receivables on actual basis in cases of sale on credit but deduction of average equalised interest cost in sales other than those on credit basis has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the department. As such, he pleads that the impugned order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on grounds of limitation. 7. The learned Counsel also states that on merit, the appellants have a good case as the deduction claimed is allowable to them in the light of following case laws:- (1) GOI v. MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). (2) Gomti Carbon Dioxide v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal - LB). (3) ICI India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2000 (91) ECR 152 (Trib.). As such, he prays for total waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and early hearing of the case. 8. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. CDR strongly opposes the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner have not given specific findings and quantified the duty liability. On the other hand, the Commissioner has passed a specific order quantifying the duty liability of the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellants seeks to place great reliance on the Larger Bench decision of CEGAT in Gomti Carbon Dioxide case to the effect that interest is deductible even when the same is not separately mentioned in the invoice. He submits that the said CEGAT decision also specifically considered Board's Circular, dated 29-3-96 which has been relied upon by the Commissioner in his impugned order but rejected the same as incorrect understanding law. The learned Jt. CDR strongly con....