TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of interest on receivables is not allowed as it has been claimed initially on equalized basis and subsequently claim has been made on actual receipts. It was also held that the price reflected in the price list of the appellant was the same to all buyers proportionate to the sale quantities. It was also held that the appellants had not produced any evidence to sustain the claim of deduction of interest on receivables. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment and decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. as reported at 2001 (137) E.L.T. 662 (T), which has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported at 2007 (209) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the judgment and order of the Tribunal in the case of Novapan Industries Ltd., which followed the judgment and order of the Tribunal in the case of ICI India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad as reported in 2000 (91) ECR 152 (Tribunal). We may mention here that the judgment and order of the Tribunal of ICI India Ltd., considered the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. MRF Ltd., as reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) and subsequent review by the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). After considering the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that the interest on receivables is a allowable deduction from the price list. We find that the facts in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is no longer a good law as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A Infrastructure Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur as reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.). Hence he submits that the law as it is prevailing today has to be applied in the case of the appellants, which is settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Infrastructure Ltd., and Novapan Industries Ltd. We find strong force in the contention of the ld. Advocate. When the earlier matter came before the Tribunal, in respect of the same appellants, the appellants were guided by the fact that the Larger Bench decision is against them, hence they might not have preferred any appeal. Since the decision of the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
