Cce Vs. Jct Ltd.

Cce vs Jct Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 30, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44237

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/44237
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Jct Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(197)ELT59TriDel

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by commissioner (appeals). in the present appeal, the revenue wants to add notional interest on advance received from the customers to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents.3. we find that in the impugned order there is a specific finding that the sale price of goods is the same for the customers who had made security deposit and those who had not made such deposit. in view of this factual finding as the revenue failed to show that the security deposit has influenced the price charged by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal, the Revenue wants to add notional interest on advance received from the customers to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents.

3. We find that in the impugned order there is a specific finding that the sale price of goods is the same for the customers who had made security deposit and those who had not made such deposit. In view of this factual finding as the Revenue failed to show that the security deposit has influenced the price charged by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.