"10MRF has represented that this cost is inbuilt in the price and is incurred on account of thetime factor between the time the goods are delivered and the time the moneys are realized.The cost is incurred only where credit terms are given in case of up-country and otherbuyers where payment is made much after the sales are affected. They contend that it isnothing but an extension of the principle underlying Rule 4 of the Central Excise(Valuation) Rules. They contend that this is an adjustment in value required to be made totake into account and provide for the difference in the time of delivery and the realizationof the sale value. As stated in our judgment in Union of India &Ors. v. Bombay TyresInternational Ltd., it is only those expenses incurred on account of factors which havecontributed to its value upto the date of sale or the date of delivery which are liable to beincluded in the assessable value.’Case 2: Thepayment arrangement can also be related to the hire purchase agreementwhich includes down payment and the installment along with interest termed as hirepurchase charges. The facts of notice can be explained and authenticated on the identicalgrounds for the levy of service tax. The Supreme Court in the case of Jai Bharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. vCommissioner of Sales Taxheld thatconsidering the widened definition of word 'sale'whatever is the amount which is paid/payable to the dealer on transfer of the goods,would be included within the meaning of expression 'sale price' and the sales taxauthorities were justified in including in the turnover of the dealer the hire chargesprovided for in the hire-purchase agreements. Correlating the judgement mentioned supra, the interest charged by the Noticee in caseof alternative of Instalment payment will form part of value of service and therefore be 11considered as the statutory levy. It can, thus, be established that interest on deferment ofpayment will not be chargeable to service tax.Case 3: Further reliance can also be placed in the matter of FuljTKaur vs State of Punjab&Ors on 3 June, 2010, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5292 OF 2004 where Supreme Court confirmsthe inclusion of interest charges related with the development charges in the cost of land.Extract of relevant para is read as under:“Under these circumstances, the entire expenditure incurred in connection with theacquisition of the land and development thereon is required to be borne by the allotteeswhen the sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the salein accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen that in the noticedated 9-8-1990, the total area, net area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, theacreage left for the developmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot-holders, plot- table area have been given for each of the areas and recovery rate also has been mentionedunder the said notice. Under these circumstances, there is no ambiguity left in thecalculations.”2. Extended period of limitation is not invocable in the present matterThe SCN has proposed to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73of the Act. During the period of dispute Section 73 of the Act, read as under:“73(1) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied orshort-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service taxwhich has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the 12person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to showcause why he should not pay the amount specified In the notice;Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short- levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of-(a) fraud; or(b) collusion; or(c) wilfulmis-statement; or(d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules madethereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax,by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions ofthis sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words "one year", the words "fiveyears" had been substituted.”2.2.Upon perusal of above provisions, it is seen that in order to invoke the extended periodof limitation, the department has to prove (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) willful mis- statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provision theservice tax law with an intent to evade payment of service tax on the part of the assessee.2.3 It is submitted that the Noticee was providing output services which either was nottaxable in the hands of the Noticee or if taxable, service tax was duly paid by the Noticee.The matter was sub-judice before the Hon’ble CESTAT and it was only in 2012 that theHon’ble CESTAT settled the position of law through the decision of PaulMerchants(supra). Demand is wrongly raised by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax,Delhi and Service tax demand on such interpretational issues would not amount to "