2007 (4) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder-in-Appeal No. 54/2005 dated 28-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants received advance payment from their customers for the supply of goods manufactured by them. The case of the Revenue is that the interest on the advance is includible in the assessable value. The original authority demanded differential duty of Rs. 1,43,498/- relying on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther he relied on the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Britannia Industries Limited v. Union of India - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 630 (Bom.) In the light of this decision, he upheld the order of the original authority. 3. Shri Lakshminarayana, the learned Counsel appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. We heard both the parties. 5. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the production. The purchasers are Public Sector Undertakings and Government Electricity Board and the price offered was against Global Tender and hence, no nexus could be established between the price and the advance received. The Apex Court, in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rural Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 132 (S.C.), has held that when there is no proof that taking of advances had ....