Per Shri P.C. Jain :

Since a common issue is involved a common Order is being passed in both the cases. The facts of the Appeal No. E(SB)535/88A are as follows:-

1.1. The appellants herein filed certain price lists and claimed deduction on account of cash discounts, transport charges etc. The Assistant Commissioner by his Order-in-Original No. 9.7.86 disallowed those deductions claimed by the appellants for want of documentary evidence. Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Before the said Authority, the appellants herein undertook to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate their claim of deductions. In view of that undertaking, the lower appellate authority had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner vide its Order-in-Appeal No. 157/SH/86 dated 26.11.1986.

1.2. The de-novo proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner on the price-lists filed by the appellants were pending judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of MRF reported in 27:ELT:553 and on the strength of the said Judgement, they wrote a letter to the Assistant Commissioner to consider additional claims in respect of further three deductions namely - (i) interest on inventories; (ii) interest on receivables; and (iii) deduction on depot expenses.

1.3. The original authority did not accept the additional claims made by the appellants consequent to the Apex Court Judgement in the case of MRF supra on the ground that these additional claims made by the appellants at the time of de-novo proceedings were not made originally in their price lists, which was the subject matter of de-novo proceedings before him. The appellants herein did not succeed before the lower appellate authority against the aforesaid findings made by the original authority on the additional three claims as mentioned above. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Learned Advocate, Shri S.K. Bagaria for the appellants submits that when the proceedings were there before the original authority by way of remand, the matters and issues were at large. Apart from that, if any claim they wanted to make on the basis of the latest judgement, they could not be deprived of the same in as much as this was an authoritative judgement handed down by the Apex Court. The lower authorities have rejected the three additional claims of the appellants without any proper reason. At this stage, he, however, fairly concedes that out of the three claims made by the appellants before the lower authorities in view of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India Vs. MRF reported in 1995 (77) ELT-433, the claims on account of interest on inventories and deduction on depot expenses - are not permissible. Their claim on account of interest on receivables, however, survives in view of the latest judgement of the Apex Court. He, therefore, prays for remanding the matter to the original authority to consider this claim of deduction on account of interest on receivables in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in the case of MRF mentioned supra.

3. Opposing the contentions of the learned Advocate, learned J.D.R., Shri S.N. Ghosh reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that the scope of remand proceedings by the lower appellate authority in its Order dated 26.11.1986 was limited to the original claim made by the appellants in their price lists. No further claim, therefore, could be made.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We observe that when the matter was remanded by the appellate authority to the original authority, all the price lists filed by them were due for approval, the proceedings being fresh before the adjudicating authority. From a reading of the Order-in-Appeal dated 26.11.1986, we do not find anything which restricts the remand only to the claim already made by the appellants. It was a sort of general remand to look into the pric