TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter reached the Supreme Court thrice. The first order of the Supreme Court on appellant's Civil Appeal No. 1285/76 is dated 12-7-1985. Dealing with the appellant's claim for deduction on account of freight on cigarettes, bank charges in discounting the bills and advertisement and publicity expenses, their Lordships observed : "As far as the first item is concerned, it is fairly conceded by the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the judgment delivered by us in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International's case, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) = 1984 (1) SCR 347, it is not possible for him to contend that the amount representing freight on cigarettes is includible in the wholesale cash price in the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed earlier and so that claim is not to be put forth In view of this stand taken by the adjudicating authority, assessee moved their Lordships of the Supreme Court for getting clarification of the order dated 19-7-1995. That petition was disposed of on 28-2-1997. Their Lordships made the position clear by stating : "We clarify that other claims earlier made were not the subject matter of our order and we have not denied or rejected them." Pursuant to the first order of the Supreme Court dated 12-7-1985, assessee filed affidavits before the Supreme Court claiming deductions not only on account of freight, bank charges in discounting the bills and advertising, publicity and sales distribution expenses but also on account of expenses inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction under the head "freight" in finding out the assessable value. 4. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case, the adjudicating authority disallowed deduction towards interest and bank charges on bill discounting from the wholesale cash price for arriving at the assessable value. This approach made by the adjudicating authority cannot be supported. Law on this point is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Gomti Carbon Dioxide v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 565. In that decision, this Tribunal was following the principles stated by the Apex Court in Govt. of India v. M.R.F. Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. Since the authority has not followed the correct princip....