Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 172 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement for interest on receivables allowable means not includible in transaction value - compensation for damage or breakage of goods after its removal from the factory was held to be not deductible from the assessable value - order of the Comm. (A) allowing the adjustment of excess duty paid against the demand is proper because goods were cleared under provisional assessment before the introduction of Rule 9B (5), since unjust enrichment is not applicable during that period
Issues:
1. Abatement towards interest on receivables. 2. Abatement towards breakages. 3. Adjustment of excess duty paid during provisional assessment. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the abatement towards interest on receivables allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the abatement was based on a Tribunal decision and appealed before the Supreme Court. The appellants cited a previous final order where interest on receivables was not included in the assessable value of goods. Considering the previous order and the decision against the Revenue in a similar case, the appeal was dismissed regarding abatement of interest on receivables. 2. Regarding abatement towards breakages, the Revenue relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating that compensation for defective goods was not abatable. The Tribunal referred to a previous final order where it was held that compensation for damage or breakage of goods was not deductible from the assessable value. Based on this, the Revenue's appeal was allowed concerning abatement on account of breakages of goods. 3. The Revenue challenged the adjustment of excess duty paid during provisional assessment, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the question of unjust enrichment before ordering the adjustment. The Tribunal found that the excess payment occurred before the relevant rule was enacted, making unjust enrichment applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the adjustment of excess duty paid against the demand, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|