2003 (1) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel for the appellant submitted that for the period relevant for this appeal no claim on bank charges had been, as a matter of fact, made. Therefore, we are concerned only with one issue, namely, interest on receivables. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that in the facts of the case abatement of interest on receivables could not be permitted since the interest was not charged over and above the sale price of the goods. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that by applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 the assessee is justified in claiming abatement of interest on receivables. Reliance was placed on paragraph 66 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  During the period covered by the above order also the procedure followed by the assessee was the same. 4. Learned Departmental Representative would contend that so long as the invoices had not separately shown collection of interest for delayed payment the dictum in MRF case cannot be applied in the case of the appellant. Reliance was also placed on Board's letter F. No. 354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000 clarifying certain points relating to new valuation provision made effective from 1-7-2000 and also Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX, dated 1-7-2002 clarifying certain points under the new valuation provisions introduced with effect from 1-7-2000. Relevant portion of Paragraph 8 of the letter dated 30-6-2002 reads as follows : "8. As....