Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - MumbaiReliance Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 September, 2003ORDER
 

 Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)1. A very short issue is involved in this appeal, i.e. as to whether the interest on receivable is admissible to be deducted from the sale price so as to arrive at the assessable value.2. We have heard both sides duly represented by Ms. Anjali Chandrekar, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Khalwadekar, Ld. JDR, for the Revenue.3. It is seen from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) that though he is admitting that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of MRF Ltd., as also by the other Tribunal's decisions, he has rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that they were not collecting any interest separately from their customers on account of delay in payment. He has not accepted their argument that the interest is deemed to be billed into the price for the purpose of allowing their claim for deduction of interest from the price realised.4. On the other hand the appellant's contention is that the issue is squarely covered by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gomti Carbon Dioxide Vs. CCE, Kanpur (2000 (119) ELT 565 Tribunal-LB).Reliance has also been placed by the Tribunal's decision in the case ofVST Industries Vs. CCE(1999 (114) ELT 676 (Tri).Further, our attention has been drawn to the Eastern Bench decision in the case ofShalimar Paints Ltd., Vs. CCE, Calcutta-II{2001 (128) ELT 492 (Tri. Cal) laying down that the interest on receivable being inbuilt in the price is deductible from the assessable value. For ready reference para 7 ofthe said decisionis re-produced below:-"We find that apart from the fact that the Commissioner, Calcutta appeal against the earlier decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bata (I) Ltd, the issue also stands decided by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Gomti Carbodioxide & Ors. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (2000 (38) RLT 1039 (CEGAT-LB). It has been held that interest on receivables where the sale is a credit sale have to be allowed as deduction from the sale price in order to arrive at the correctassessable value. However, the Tribunal has observed that such an interest can be claimed as a deduction for the credit period mentioned in the invoices or the other duty paying documents. We find that in the instant case the Revenue has not raised any objection that no credit period was being allowed by the appellant to their customers. On the contrary the deduction has been disallowed on the ground that such interest was inbuilt in the wholesale cash price. In view of this we find that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal squarely applies to the facts of the instant case ".5. In the instant case also we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant gets the consideration for sale of the goods after a particular period. As such even though the interest amount has not been shown separately in the invoice and the same is inbuilt in the price, the deduction on account of the same is required to be allowed. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.