TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the Apex Court's decision in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. It is true that the appellants had taken a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lic 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 any influence in reducing the price or th....