2014 (1) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR) For the Respondent: Mr. D. Arvind, CA ORDER Per: P.G. Chacko; This application filed by the department (appellant) points out what is perceived as an 'apparent error' in Final Order No. 655/2012 dated 13.09.2012 passed by this bench in Appeal No. E/671/2004. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that para 3 of the Final Order contains a factually erroneous statement rega....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aw a distinction between the findings recorded therein and the grounds raised by the department in the captioned appeal. It is pointed out that, in Final Order No. 785 to 786/2007, it was clearly found that the assessee (respondent) had not been able to establish that the price charged on the goods sold to customers on credit basis contained an element of interest inbuilt therein. On the other han....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r No. 785 to786/2007 was in favour of the department, the same was accepted and hence the question of the department filing an appeal against the said Final Order did not arise. Considering this factual position, we have to rectify the second sentence of para 3 as well. However the conclusion recorded in para 4 of Final Order No. 655/2012 in favour of the respondent cannot be modified inasmuch as,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the price charged on the goods sold to customers on credit basis contained an element of interest inbuilt therein and there was no evidence of any such interest having been separately recovered by the assessee from the customers. On the other hand, in the present case, it was consistently contended by the assessee that such interest was inbuilt in the price of the goods, a condition which was r....