TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind, CA ORDER Per: P.G. Chacko; This application filed by the department (appellant) points out what is perceived as an 'apparent error' in Final Order No. 655/2012 dated 13.09.2012 passed by this bench in Appeal No. E/671/2004. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that para 3 of the Final Order contains a factually erroneous statement regarding Final Order No. 785 to 786/2007 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed therein and the grounds raised by the department in the captioned appeal. It is pointed out that, in Final Order No. 785 to 786/2007, it was clearly found that the assessee (respondent) had not been able to establish that the price charged on the goods sold to customers on credit basis contained an element of interest inbuilt therein. On the other hand, in the present case, the department did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment, the same was accepted and hence the question of the department filing an appeal against the said Final Order did not arise. Considering this factual position, we have to rectify the second sentence of para 3 as well. However the conclusion recorded in para 4 of Final Order No. 655/2012 in favour of the respondent cannot be modified inasmuch as, in Final Order No. 785 to 786/2007 ibid, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on credit basis contained an element of interest inbuilt therein and there was no evidence of any such interest having been separately recovered by the assessee from the customers. On the other hand, in the present case, it was consistently contended by the assessee that such interest was inbuilt in the price of the goods, a condition which was repeatedly acknowledged by the appellant in the gro....