AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant and upheld the order-in-original. As the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal and discussion. The details of both the appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. E/1605/2012 E/1606/2012 Issue Deduction of interest on receivables from the assessable value Deduction of interest on receivables from the assessable value Period December 2007 to May 2008 June 2008 to September 2008 OIA 51-52/CE/Chd-I/12 dt. 12.03.2012 51-52/CE/Chd-I/12 dt. 12.03.2012 OIO 2-3/CE/ADC/ADT/2010 dt. 30.04.2010 2-3/CE/ADC/ADT/2010 dt. 30.04.2010 SCN C.No. V(84)JC(P&V)Adj/Chd/39/2008/4266 dt. 30.10.2008 C.No. V(84)JC(P&V)Adj/Chd/39/2008/42....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notices controverting the allegations in the show cause notices. • After following due process, vide common Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2010 entire demand was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty. • Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide OIA dated 12.03.2012 upheld the demand of excise duty as confirmed in the OIO. • Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the documentary evidence on record and without following the precedent de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise Commissionerate, Jodhpur 2021 (9) TMI 141 (Tri.- Del.) • Castrol India Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1158 (SC) 5. She further relied upon the following decisions, wherein it is consistently held that there is no dispute that deduction on interest on receivable shall be admissible to the assessee. • Government of India vs. MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) • CCE vs. Novopan Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC). 6. She also submitted that in the Appellant's own case for the period January 2007 to November 2007, the department has allowed the deduction of interest on receivables vide order-in-appeal no. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receivable was admissible. For this submission, she relied upon the following decision:- • Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC.) • Rupali Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2017 (6) GSTL 161 (Tri.-Del.) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 11. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that the only issue involved in the present cases is whether the interest on receivables is to be deducted from the assessable value for payment of duty or not? We find that the interest on receivables has been deducted on the basis of the purchase orders and invoices whe....