Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1987 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (2) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities arising from Central Government's Order-in-Revision
- Interpretation of the Order-in-Revision regarding exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses
- Distinction between sole distributor and selling agent in the context of pricing

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants being aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim arising from Order Nos. 874 to 878 passed by the Central Government in revision. The dispute revolved around the exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses like agency commission, advertising expenses, selling expenses, freight, and insurance from the assessable value. The Central Government erroneously treated the issues in five Revision Applications as identical and passed a consolidated order, which became the subject of interpretation in the present controversy.

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Revision did not reject the relevant Revision Application and used favorable language towards the appellants. However, the lower authorities had rejected the refund claim based on a literal interpretation that the prices charged to the sole distributor were not applicable since they were a selling agent, not a distributor. The Tribunal declined the appellants' plea to interpret the terms differently, emphasizing the distinction between a distributor and a selling agent.

Despite acknowledging that some expenses were disallowed by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the Tribunal found that freight and transit insurance were allowable deductions. The Tribunal agreed to grant a refund limited to these two expenses and set aside the lower authorities' orders, directing the Assistant Collector to quantify and grant the refund promptly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified the interpretation of the Order-in-Revision, upheld the distinction between a sole distributor and a selling agent, and allowed a refund for specific expenses while dismissing others based on legal precedents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates