TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pter Heading No.73 & 79 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that the Appellant had allowed cash discounts from the price, but later recovered a part of this discount so passed on, by way of issuing debit notes and showing in their books of account as financial charges, since in the nature of additional consideration, accordingly includible in the assessable value, differential duty of Rs. 16,80,129/- for the period from October 2003 to June 2009 was demanded by issuing notice dt.05.01.2008, with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was reduced to Rs. 2,59,813/- with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, both the Appellant as well as the Revenue have filed the appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest or financial charges or financial cost cannot be considered as an additional consideration from the buyers to the sellers, hence not includible in the assessable value. In support, the learned Advocate referred to the following judgments:- a) Distant Horizon Orchard Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE (A) 2015 (37) STR 202 (Cal.) b) John Dere (I) Ltd Vs CCE 2014 (311) ELT 189 (Tri-Mumbai) c) CCE Vs Raja Ram Corn. Products 2004 (167) ELT 410 (Tri-Del) d) Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd Vs CCE 2007 (210) ELT 385 (Tri-Bang.) e) Simplex Infrastructures Ltd Vs CST 2016 (42) STR 634 (Cal.) 4. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating authority, taking note of the fact that the transactions entered into by the Appellant with their customers were kno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e customers. It is pleaded by the Revenue that the said recovery of financial charges are nothing but additional consideration flowing from the customers to the Appellant and consequently requires to be included in the assessable value. The Appellant, on the other hand, contended that the cash discount is allowed to the customers who makes the payment within the stipulated period and there is no dispute on it. However, if the customers delay in making payment beyond specified period, interest is charged, which is the financial cost to the Company for late receipt of payment and accordingly debit notes were issued to the Appellant for recovery of said financial charges separately. 8. We find that this issue of inclusion of financial charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment. 5. It is well settled that assessable value is to be worked out with regard to time of removal of the goods under assessment. Collection towards delay in payment, be it called 'interest' or 'Financial cost' or by any other term, is a cost subsequent to the time of removal of the goods. Such a cost cannot find place in the price of the goods at the time of removal. 6. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE,. New Delhi v. Vikram Detergent Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) that banking charges, being in the nature of post-removal expenses, is deductible from the sale price. Para 11 of the judgment also clearly mentions that "interest on receivables earned on account of th....