Full Judgment
2. The issue in these appeals is whether the notional interest on advances received by the assessees from its buyers towards the purchase of the goods, should form part of the assessable value. Adjudicating on the notices issued to the assessees, proposing such addition, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the department had not shown that the fact of advances had resulted in depression of the price and therefore the notional interest should not form part of the assessable value.
3. The ground in these appeals is that the Commissioner has erred in his conclusion that it is for the department to show that the fact of advances has resulted in depression of the price. It is contended that the price must be the full consideration for the sale of the goods. The decision of the Tribunal in Resistance Alloys (India) Ltd. v. CCE -1995 (77) E.L.T. 721 is relied upon.VST Industries v. CCE -1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 makes it very clear that unless it is shown that the deposit or advances depressed the price of the goods, notional interest on such advances is not includable in the value of the goods. The department's appeal does not show the existence of any consideration, additional to the price for the sale of the goods. The circular of the Board No. 404/37/98, dated 22-6-1998, issued after the judgement, itself reiterated, by affirming the opinion of the Law Ministry in paragraph 2 of the circular that it will be for the department to establish that such additional consideration was in existence for the sale price of the goods. This ground is fairly answered by the circular of the Board itself.
5. We are unable to see existence of any additional consideration for the sale of the goods. No such existence of any additional consideration has been shown. The advance paid was part of the price.
This ground also does not merit consideration.
6. The Tribunal's decision in Resistance Alloys (India) Ltd. v. CCE -1995 (77) E.L.T. 721 holding that the burden was upon the assessee to prove that the deposits received by it from each of the buyers were not used in the manufacture of excisable goods is no longer good law in the light of the Supreme Court judgment.
8. We are also compelled to observe that these appeals ought not to have been filed at all. They are not only contradictory to the judgement of the Supreme Court but they clearly ignored the directions of the Board contained in the circular that we have referred to above.
Apart from the fact that the Board's circular itself would be considered to be binding for the Commissioner who authorised the filing of appeal, as held by the Supreme Court in Ranade Micronutrients v. CCE -1996 (87) E.L.T. 90 we do not see how a deliberate flouting of the Board's instructions by filing such appeals helps anyone in the department. The Commissioner has specifically referred to Board's instruction. We think that the Board itself should be concerned with a large number of such appeals filed directly contrary to the Board's instruction and would like a copy of this order to be sent to the Member of the Board who deals with such matters.