COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IIIversusM/S I.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD.

A              COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III
                                           v.
                            MIS. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD.

                                    APRIL 2 I, 2003

B                   [S.N. VARIA VA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]


        Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944/Central Excise (Valuation) Rules,
   1975-Section 4/Rule 5-Valuation of excisable goods-Interest free advances
C taken by manufacturer from buyer-Notional interest thereon-Whether liable
   to be added to assessable value of goods-Held: Such notional interest
   cannot be added to the assessable value of goods unless it is proved by
   Revenue that such advance has influenced lowering of the price-A
 . presumption that fixation of price is influenced by such advance, cannot be
   drawn-Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods)
D Rules, 2003.
           Appellant-Revenue issued show cause cum demand notices calling upon
    respondent-manufacturers to show cause regarding inclusion of the notional
    interest in the assessable value of goods, on the interest free advances taken
    by the assessees from customers in view of Section 4 of Central Excise and
E   Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.
    Respondent-manufacturers resisted the demands on the grounds that advance
    taken is merely a security for the due performance of the contract; that such
    advances can be included in the assessable value depending upon the terms
    and conditions of contract on which advance is made in full or in part; and that
F   it is not necessary that the advance must necessarily be used for manufacture
    of the item. The assessing and the appellate authorities added the notional
    interest accrued on advances made to the manufacturers in the assessable
    value. On appeal Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal set aside
    the orders holding that it was not liable to be included in the assessable value.

G          In appeal to this Court, respondent-manufacturers relied on a circular
    issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi in 1998 which
    stipulated that where price is not influenced by fact of interest free advance
    made by the buyer to the manufacturer, there would be no occasion to add
    notional interest to the assessable value of the goods. Another notification was
H   also issued in 2003 to the same effect.
                                          814
                         C.C.E v. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD.                        815
      Appellant-Revenue contended that the amount of advance bei.ng utilised            A
for the purpose of manufacture of goods, entails profit to the manufacturer to
the extent of interest which would have been paid by the manufacturer to the
bank and the profit is liable to be added to the assessable \'alue of goods; that
such buyers advancing money are favoured buyers enjoying special concessions
at the bands of the manufacturers to the detriment of the Revenue; and that a
presumption must be drawn that fixation of price is influenced by such an               B
advance.

       Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: l. Mere fact of making an interest free advance by a buyer to the C
manufacturer, by itself will not be a sufficient ground to reload the assessable
value with notional interest. It would be necessary for the Revenue to show
that such advance has influenced in the lowering of the price and that it is not
depicting the normal price of the goods. There may be different reasons for
taking advances. A presumption that fixation of price is influenced by such an
advance, cannot be drawn. Clause (iii) of the Circular issued by the Central D
Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi in 1998 clearly provides that if there
is no difference in the selling price for both categories of the wholesale buyers
and there is also "no proor• that on account of advance deposits taken from
some buyers, the price charged from all buyers has been reduced, then element ·
of notional interest on advance deposits, cannot be added. Obviously, where E
there are two prices, one for those who have made the advance and the other
who have not, it would require no further proof of the lower price having been
influenced by the interest free advance made by the buyer. But otherwise it
would require proof and. the proof for the purposes of holding that interest
free advance has influenced the price would obviously be provided by the
Revenue. The same position continued in the later amendment in the Rules of F
2003. (824-F-H; 825-A-C(

     Union ofIndia v. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited. (1995) 77 E.L.T. 799
(Madras); Mis. VST Industries Ltd. v. Collector ofCentral Excise, Hyderabad,
(199812 SCC 24 and Mis. Metal Box India Ltd v. Collector ofCentral Excise, G
Madras, (199512 SCC 90, referred to.

        2. In the present cases neither there is any evidence or proof on the
. record nor it is the case of the appellant on facts, that the interest free advance
  has influenced the price and a price lower than the normal price had been
  charged by the responden~s. (825-EI                                                   H
    816                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2884-2892 of
    1999.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.98 of the Central Excise and
    Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in A. Nos. E/2382, 2383, 2387,
    2388, 2389, 2391, 2393, 2394of1997 in F.O. Nos. 1193-1202of1998/WZB.
B
                                        WITH

            C.A. Nos. 6600-6607/99, 3635, 798, 410, 787-788/2000, 868 and 864 of
    2002.

C         R.P. Bhat, Raj iv Nanda, Ms. Smita Inna, B.K. Prasad, Praveen Kumar. A.
    Raghunath, Prashant Bhushan, Narinder Verma, Vishal Gupta, B. Balaji, Rajesh
    Kumar, S.K. Bagaria, K.V.Viswanathan, Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Suman J. Khaitan,
    Jay Salva, Ramesh Singh, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava and Ms. Bina Gupta for the
    appearing parties.

D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         BRIJESH KUMAR, J. All the above noted appeals have been preferred
  by the Revenue under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
  (for short 'the Act') against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and
  Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGA T'), allowing the appeals
E of the assessees and holding that notional interest on the advances taken by
  the assessees, from the buyers is not liable to be added in the assessable
  value of the goods. With minor variations in the facts of each case, the main
  question involved in all these appeals is the same viz. the notional interest
  is liable to be included or not in the assessable value of goods. This question
F has been differently framed in different appeals but crux of the matter for
  consideration remains the same, hence all these appeals have been heard
  together and they are being disposed of by one common order. In Appeal No.
  410 of 2000, it was also indicated on behalf of the respondent that major part
  of the demand had become time barred. If necessary, we would advert to that
  question. No other question, in any appeal has been raised or pressed before
G us by either party.
           For the sake of convenience, we refer to the documents on the record
    of the Civil Appeals Nos. 2884-2892of1999, Commissioner ofCentral facise
    v. Mis. ISPL Industries Ltd The show cause cum demand notice dated
H   3.7.1995 is a long notice calling upon to show cause in respect of different
            C.C.E v. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. [BR!JESH KUMAR, J.)           817
matters under the Central Excise Act, besides one relating to inclusion of the A
national interest in the assessable value, on the interest free advances taken
by the assessees from customers. It reads as under:-

       "Whereas it appears that M/s. ISPL Industries Limited, Kolshet... .....

       (I) They have not included the interest accrued on the advance B
       received from the customers in the assessable value on the goods
       cleared during the period from Jan.95 to Mar (details shown in the
       Annexure mclosed in the SCN.)

       The interest payable/paid in the advance made by the customers
       includible in the assessable value because the assessee would have C
       incurred the expenditure for the said interest had they borrowed taken
       loans from Banks. The advance are similar to bank loans or money
       borrowed from banks and hence the interest on said advances in
       includable in the asseessable value in view of Section 4 of the C.Ex.
       and Salt Act 1944 read with rule 5 of C. Ex valuation rules 1975 and
       charged approximate C.Ex. duty, which they have failed to do at the D
       time of clearance of excisable goods (details given in the Annexure to
       this show cause notice).
      (1)   ................... .

      (2)   .................... .
                                                                                 E
           Now therefore the assessee are hereby required to show cause to
       the Dy. Commissioner, C.Ex. Bombay-lll having his office at 4th floor,
       Navprabhat Chambers, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay-28 to why:
      (a)   The interest accrued on the advances received from their
            customers should not be included in the assessable value, the F
            interest being calculated at the rate of 18% (Normal Bank rate of
            interest) from the date of receipt of advances/deposits till the date
            of final dispatch of material and
            xxx                       xxx                               xxx
                                                         Superintendent C.Ex. G
                                                     Range IV Div.Thane Ill"

     As it would be evident, the main plank of the demand is that the
advances taken from their customers are similar to bank loans or money
borrowed from banks on which interest would normally be payable by the H
                                                                                       )


    818                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A assessee, hence the interest on such advances is liable to be included in the
    assessable value as per the provisions under Section 4 of the Central Excise
    & Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.

          The assessing authorities and the appellate authority did not accept the
    explanations of the assessees and added the notional interest accrued on
B   advances made to the manufacturers, in the assessable value. The CEGA T,
    however, set aside those orders holding that it was not liable to be included
    in the assessable value. The Revenue has preferred appeals against the
    orders of the CEGAT.

          The respondent-manufacturers had resisted the demand on various
C grounds. Some of the manufacturers, who manufactures the tailor made goods
  i.e. as per the requirement of the buyer, they have to ensure that the goods
  manufactured, which are generally heavy machines, are taken delivery of
  failing which it may result in very heavy losses, as such machines would not
  be of any use for others nor it would be possible to get buyers for such tailor
D made goods. In such cases the advance taken is nothing else than mere
  security for the due performance of the contract. In some cases, it is submitted
  that advance of only a part of the amount is taken rest of which, for example,
  upto 90% is paid on delivery of the goods and the balance of I 0% or
  whatever amount as per agreement it may be, is paid after the period fixed for
  watching the proper performance of the machinery. Therefore, sometimes the
E amount which remains in balance is paid much after the delivery of the goods.
  Their case is that it all depends on the terms and conditions of contract t~
  contract on which advance is made in full or in part. Yet another submission
  which has been advanced is that it is not necessary that amount taken in
  advance must necessarily be used for manufacture of the item. There may be
p units which may carry out the manufacturing and supplies without any need
  of having utilized .such amount. It might have sufficient resources of liquid
  finances of its own to carry out the manufacturing. That is to say for such
  units there may not be any necessity to take loans from the banks or other
  institutions.

G         We may at this stage peruse the relevant provision under the law which
    has been pressed into service by the revenue for the purposes of adding the
    amount of notional interest in the assessable value. Section 4 of the Central
    Excise Act reads as under:

            ''4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of
H           excise-( I) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on
      C.C.E v. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. (BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]            819
any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject A
to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be-

(a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such
goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of
wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where
the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration B
for the sale:

Provided that-

(i) where, in !\CCordance with the normal practice of the wholesale
trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different        C
prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each
such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances
specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such
goods in relation to each such class of buyers;

(ia) where the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the          D
assessee is different for different places of removal, each such price
shall, subject to the existence of other circumstances specified in
clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation
to each such place of removal;

(ii) where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of              E
wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price
fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the
maximum, fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price,
as the case may be so fixed shall, in relation to the goods so sold,         F
be deemed to be the normal price thereof;

xxx                               xxx                         xxx

(4)'For the purposes of this section,-

xxx                               xxx                         xxx            G

(d) "value:, in relation to any excisable goods,-

(i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed
condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the
packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer H
    820                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A           to the assessee.

            xxx                                xxx                       xxx

            Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 falling in Chapter II
            reads as under:

B           "Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified
            in clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 4 of the Act except that the
            price is not the sole consideration, the value of such goods shall be
            based on the aggregate of such price and the amount of the money
            value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly
C           from the buyer to the assessee."

          Shri R.P. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submits
  that amount of advance taken by a manufacturer from its customers free of
  interest and such money being utilized for the purposes of manufacture of the
  goods, entails profit to the manufacturer to the extent of interest which would
D have been paid by the manufacturer to the bank. The benefit which accrues
  to the manufacturer amounts to profit to him, liable to be added in the
  assessable value of goods. Such buyers advancing money are favoured
  buyers, enjoying special concession or benefits at the hands of the
  manufacturer to the detriment of the revenue. He has taken us through the
  order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise where it has been observed
E that price charged from a favoured buyer would not be a nonnal price.
  Therefore, notional interest on the interest free advance taken from the favoured
  buyer would justifiably be added to the assessable value. We find that
  reliance has been heavily placed upon the decision reported in 1995 (75) EL T
  P. 499 = [1995] 2 SCC P. 90 Mis. Metal Box India ltd. v. Collector ofCentral
F Excise, Madras. The facts in the case of the Metal Box are that Ponds (India)
  Ltd. has been buying about 90% of the total production of metal containers
  manufactured by the assessee. For the said purpose huge amounts were
  being advanced by Ponds (India) Ltd. free of interest to M/s Metal Box. In
   its turn the assessee gave 50% discount in price, as compared to the normal
  price, to Ponds (India) Ltd. This Court while dealing with the question observed
G 'when Ponds (I) Limited was given 50 per cent discount from normal price
  then the material aspect that Ponds (I) Limited had advanced large amounts
  free of interest had necessarily entered into consideration between the parties.
  Therefore, special treatment was given by the assessee to Ponds (1) Limited."
                                                                                       -
                                                                                       '


  It is further observed, had Ponds (I) Limited not given the advance, the
H assessee would have borrowed the same for purchasing the raw materials etc.
               C.C.E v. l.S.P. JNDUSTRIES LTD. [BRIJESH KUMAR,J.]            821
    from banks on which large amount of interest would obviously have been         A
    paid which in turn would have got reflected in the purchase price to be
    charged from the buyers as amount of interest payable to the banks on the
    loan would be part of cost of production passed on to the customers of the
    assessee. It has been held:

           "Section 4(1 )(a) that normal price would be price which must be the B
           sole consideration for the sale of goods and only under such a
           situation sub-section (!)(a) would come into play. If the price in a
           particular transaction is not the sole consideration flowing directly or
           indirectly from the buyer to the assessee-manufacture, either in cash
           or any other form, the jldditional consideration quantified in terms of C
           money value is to be ~dded to the price declared by the assessee for
           determining the normal price of the goods."

    We therefore, find that the main basis of adding the notional interest in
    assessable value of goods was on account of interest free loan which factor
    was responsible for determination of price between the parties namely, c;;3count D
    of 50% i.e. the price other than the normal price. There came to be two prices
•   one for those who may not have advanced any interest free loan to the
    manufacturer and the other for Ponds(!) Limited which was a bulk purchaser
    to the extent of nearly 90% of the production for which purpose advance was
    also made available to the manufacturer without interest. The fact of interest
    free loan, has direct nexus with price fixation at a lower amount than the E
    normal price.

           The other case on the point which has been relied upon by the learned
    counsel for the respondents is reported in (1998] 2 SCC 24, VST Industries
    Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad. The appellant in that case
    carried on business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes exigable to excise F
    duty. The goods manufactured by them were sold in wholesale. The main
    dealers would sell the cigarettes to the wholesalers. The appellants sold the
    goods on cash-and-carry basis as well as by extending credit facility to some
    of its main dealers. Since it was felt that there was delay in remittances of the
    amount on account of sale on credit, the manufacturers introduced a credit G
    facility scheme under which such main dealers were to make interest free
    security deposit equivalent to about 21 days of their normal monthly purchases.
    They could also purchase the goods on cash basis as well, if they so desired.
    The other dealers who were not availing of the credit facility as well as those
    availing of such facility, the goods were sold to both at the same price. That
    is to say no special concession or discount was given to those who deposited H
    822                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A interest free security for credit facility. The revenue, however, served a notice
    under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 1975 for adding the notional interest on
    the security amount advanced interest free, so as to arrive at the normal price
    of the goods. This Court negated the case of the revenue for reloading the
    assessable value by adding notional interest on the amount of interest free
    advance deposited as security by some. of the dealers. One of the main
B   considerations was that uniform price was being charged by the manufacturer
    from all its dealers. That is to say the price was not influenced by the fact
    of interest free security deposit made by dealers availing the credit facility.
    This Court also observed that the case of Metal Box (supra) is clearly
    distinguishable since in the case lesser price was being charged from Mis.
C   Ponds (1) Limited as compared to other b4yers. Therefore, one of the relevant
    factors would be as to whether the price is affected by the fact of interest
    free advance or remains uniform for all. If the price is not influenced by the
    fact of interest free advance, there would be no occasion to contend that the
    price charged uniformly from both sets of the buyers would still not be a
    normal price.
D
          Learned counsel for the respondents in one of the appeals, has drawn
    our attention to a circular of Government of India, Ministry of Fiance
    (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi
    dated 22.6.1998. The circular was issued on the subject of liability of duty on
E   notional interest on advance deposits taken by manufacturers, particularly in
    view of the decisions in the case of Metal Box (supra), Union of India v.
    Lakshmi Machine Works Limited(l995) 77 E.L.T. 799 Madras and Mis. VST
    Industries Ltd. (supra). On consideration of the decisions indicated above,
    the circular notifies the opinion of the Law Ministry as follows:

            "(i) The notional interest on advances deposited by the wholesale
F
            buyers would be included for the purpose of determination of
            assessable value if the deposit influences the fixation of sale price
            either by way of charging a less price from or by offering a special
            discount to the buyer who has given the deposit.

G           (ii) If two different price exist, one for the wholesale buyer who has
            deposited the advance and the other for the wholesale buyer who has
            not deposited the advance, they would form two different classes of
            buyers and two different assessable values can be arrived at. For the
            wholesale buyer depositing the advance, the notional interest on
            advance deposit should be added for the purpose of determination of
H           the assessable value.
                C.C.E v. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]             823
            (iii) If there is no difference in the selling price for both categories of A
            the wholesale buyers and there is also no proof that on account of
            advance deposits taken from some buyers, the price charged from all
            buyers has been reduced, then element of notional interest on advance
            deposits cannot be added.

            (iv) If the interest earned/saved on such advanced deposits is credited B
            to the buyer calculated at a rate lower than the normal bank rate, the
            difference in both interest rates should be equivalent to the extent of
            benefit derived by the manufacturer. The money value of the extent
            of benefit should be quantified and added for the purpose of
            determination of the assessable value.
                                                                                      c
            This supersedes the Board's Circular No. 215/49/96 (F. No. 6/1/91-CX
            I), dated 27-5-1996."

                                                              (Emphasis supplied.)

     The above circular leaves no room to doubt that where price is not influenced D
     by fact of interest free advance made by the buyer to the manufacturer, there
..   would be no occasion to add notional interest to the assessable value of the
     goods.

            Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in one of the appeals
            has also brought to our notice another Notification dated March 1,         E
            2003 amending the Rules by the Central Excise Valuation (Determination
            of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2003. Clause 3 reads as under:

            "In the said rules, in rule 6, the Explanation shall be renumbered as
            Explanation 1, and after the Explanation so renumbered the following
            shall be inserted, namely:-                                                F
            "Explanation, 2-Where an assessee receives any advance payment
            from the buyer against delivery of any excisable goods, no notional
            interest on such advance shall be added to the value unless the
            central Excise Officer has evidence to the effect that the advance
            received has influenced the fixation of the price of the goods by way G
            of charging a lesser price from or by offering a special discount to the
            buyer who has made the advance deposit.

            Illustration 1-X, an assessee, sells his goods to Y against full advance
            payment of Rs. I 00 per piece. However, X also sells such goods to
            Z without any advance payment at the same price of Rs. I 00 per piece. H
    824                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A           No notional interest on the advance received by X is includible in the
            transaction value.

            Illustration 2-An, an assessee, manufactures and supplies certain
            goods as per design and specification furnished by B at a price of Rs.
            I 0 lakhs. A takes 50% of the price as advance against these goods
B           and there is no sale of such goods to any other buyer. There is no
            evidence available with the Central Excise Officer that the notional
            interest on such advance has resulted in lowering of the prices. Thus,
            no notional interest on the advance received shall be added to the
            transaction value."

C   It is submitted that besides illustration I, the illustration 2 covers the cases
    of all such respondents who manufacture the goods as per design and
    specification given by the buyer. It has, however, been rightly pointed out on
    behalf of the appellant the above noted notification dated March I, 2003
    would not be applicable to the present appeals since the appeals relate to the



                                                                                       ..
D   period prior to 2003 but there is no dispute that the cases in appeal are
    covered by the other circular of 1998 referred to earlier. Nonetheless, the
    notification dated 1.3.2003 has been issued, though not applicable in the
    present cases, on the principle that in case interest free advance does not
    influence the price by making it lower than the normal price, notional interest
    is not to be added. We may like to clarify that the view taken by us is not
E   based on the notification dated 1.3.2003, but it certainly lends strength to the
    submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, since that
    principle is found to be adhered to in the above noted notification issued
    subsequently too in the year 2003.

         It is clear that the mere fact of making an interest free advance by a
F buyer to the manufacturer, by itself will not be a sufficient ground to reload
  the assessable value with notional interest. It would be necessary for the
  revenue to show that such advance has influenced in th~ lowering of the
  price and that it is not depicting the normal price of the goods. There may
  be different reasons for taking advances, as indicated above in the earlier part
G of this judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all that the
  revenue has to show is that interest free advance has been made by the.buyer
  to the manufacturer which would lead to a presumption that it is to the
  advantage of the manufacturer having influenced the fixation of price as well.
  We, however, fail to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the revenue
  for drawing a presumption that fixation of price is influenced by such an
H advance. In this connection, we may refer tii the Board's circular of 1998
            C.C.E v. l.S.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.)              825
quoted earlie~ clause (iii) of which clearly provides that if there is no difference A
in the selling price for both categories of the wholesale buyers and there is
also "no proof' that on account of advance deposits taken from some buyers,
the price charged from all buyers has been reduced, then element of notional
interest on advance deposits, cannot be added. Obviously, where there are
two prices, one for those who have made the advance and the other who have
not, it would require no further proof of the lower price having been influenced B
by the interest free advance made by the buyer. But otherwise it would require
proof and the proof for the purposes of holding that interest free advance has
influenced the price would obviously be provided by the revenue. There is
no scope for any such presumption as canvassed on behalf of the appellant.
We find the same position to be continued in the later amendment in the Rules C
of 2003 referred to above. As in illustration 2, it talks of evidence to show
that interest free advance has resulted in lowering of the prices. The
departmental circulars and the amendments in the Rules at the relevant time
and subsequently too, do not envisage of any presumption to be drawn by
mere fact of interest free advance by the buyer to the manufacturer. It requires
proof and evidence. to show that fixation of price has been influenced on the D
lower side by such a transaction of interest free advance.

      In the appeals before us neither there is any evidence or proof on the
record nor it is the case of the appellant on facts, that the interest free
advances has influenced the price and the price lower than the normal price         E
had been charged by the respondents. We do not think it necessary to deal
with facts of each case separately since it is not in dispute that interest free
advance were made by the buyers but at the same time it is also not in dispute
that such advances had never influenced the price charged by the
manufacturers from buyers.
                                                                                    F
      In view of the discussion held above and the reasons indicated, we find
no force in the appeals and all the appeals are dismissed with costs.

K.K.T.                                                       Appeals dismissed.