Amitech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Amitech Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 24, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13146

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/13146
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Mar 24, 1998
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Direct Taxation

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amitech Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(77)LC60Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. we have heard shri m. ali, jdr, and perused the papers.2. appellant manufactured and cleared five knotting machines and spare parts, etc. during the period from august, 1989 to january, 1990 on payment of appropriate duty on approved prices. show cause notice was issued stating that the appellant had collected the entire price in advance from all the customers and notional interest at 12% per annum should be included in the assessable value. accordingly, show cause notice proposed demand of differential duty. though the appellant resisted the notice, the assistant collector confirmed the demand and his order has been confirmed by the collector (appeals). hence, the present appeal.3. at page 2 of the order-in-original, we find an illustrative case.the total value was rs. 5,57,825.00. the machine was supplied on 2.8.1989. the price was received in three instalments, namely rs. 25,000.00 on 6.4.1989, rs. 50,000.00 on 18.4.1989 and the final instalment of rs. 4,82,825.00 was received on 17.7.1989. it is seen that the final payment was just before the delivery and the earlier payments were of small amounts compared to the value of the machine.various parts of the advance were in the hands of the appellant for periods ranging from 15 days to 4 months. advances were collected from all the customers, since as explained by the appellant, the machines were expensive and sophisticated machines and it was necessary to secure the appellant from the risk of cancellation of the orders, etc.there is no material to indicate that the receipt of the advances had any effect on the price leading to depreciation of the price. in these circumstances, we find that there was no justification to include notional interest in the assessable value.

Full Judgment

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR, and perused the papers.

2. Appellant manufactured and cleared five knotting machines and spare parts, etc. during the period from August, 1989 to January, 1990 on payment of appropriate duty on approved prices. Show cause notice was issued stating that the appellant had collected the entire price in advance from all the customers and notional interest at 12% per annum should be included in the assessable value. Accordingly, show cause notice proposed demand of differential duty. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.

3. At page 2 of the order-in-original, we find an illustrative case.

The total value was Rs. 5,57,825.00. The machine was supplied on 2.8.1989. The price was received in three instalments, namely Rs. 25,000.00 on 6.4.1989, Rs. 50,000.00 on 18.4.1989 and the final instalment of Rs. 4,82,825.00 was received on 17.7.1989. It is seen that the final payment was just before the delivery and the earlier payments were of small amounts compared to the value of the machine.

Various parts of the advance were in the hands of the appellant for periods ranging from 15 days to 4 months. Advances were collected from all the customers, since as explained by the appellant, the machines were expensive and sophisticated machines and it was necessary to secure the appellant from the risk of cancellation of the orders, etc.

There is no material to indicate that the receipt of the advances had any effect on the price leading to depreciation of the price. In these circumstances, we find that there was no justification to include notional interest in the assessable value.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Amitech Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.