TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant's certificate specifying the percentage of post-manufacturing expenses. However, the petitioners' claim was rejected. After filing the appeal, which was dismissed, the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 470 of 1981. At the stage of admission of the said writ petition, the impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the assessing authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In the meanwhile the petitioners were allowed to clear the goods on certain terms. 2. Pursuant to the orders passed on 9th April 1981 in Writ Petition No. 470 of 1981, the petitioners were heard again. They filed their fresh price list and claimed deductions on account of six items as post-manufacturing expenses. The said six items are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are admissible as deductions on account of the same being post-manufacturing expenses. 4. The first item on account of which deduction is claimed is expenses incurred for the alleged special packing. The contention of Shri Parikh is that the goods are normally packed in bundles with strips packing viz. naked bundles with ends tied with strips. The petitioners' contention, however, is that extruded shapes and sections which are to be put to use as highly sensitive components (such as in Reprographic Machines, Electronic equipments etc.) are required to be sent in a special wooden packing or in hessian packing. The very nature of such extruded shapes and sections being highly vulnerable to damage during handling, storage or in transit, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case may be. Shri Parikh also tried to place reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. etc. (supra) in para 49 of the judgment at page 1925 of the report. However, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for more than one reason. The affidavit filed by the second petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the first petitioner company, specifically shows that the price for delivery of the goods has been mentioned as "Ex-works". As distinguished from the facts in the case before the Supreme Court, in the present case, the price list submitted by the assessee shows that the fixation of the price "Ex-works" clearly shows that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are ordinarily sold at the place of business is known, as in the present case, it is not possible to accept the petitioners' contention that the interest which they would have earned in case of the prompt recovery of the sale price has to be excluded while determining the assessable value. The petitioners' argument that there have been borrowings in the normal course of business, has no relevance to the question of deductions claimed on account of interest on credit to the customers. The petitioners have themselves admitted that there are borrowings on other counts also as a result of which the interest is paid to the bankers. It is thus not possible to accept the contention of Shri Parikh for deduction on account of interest to the credito....