9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 728 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid - duty paid on Road Delivery Charges (RDC) collected from the dealers - principles of unjust enrichment - Held that - Since there was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to deal with the latest decision of the Tribunal and since the foundation of the impugned order, i.e. the decision of the Tribunal in MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I 2009 (11) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI is not in existence, it is deemed fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner to decide the appeals afresh in view of the latest decisions - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Entitlement for refund of duty paid on Road Delivery Charges (RDC) collected from dealers. Analysis: The case involved the question of whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of the duty paid on Road Delivery Charges (RDC) collected from dealers. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, incurred RDCs on behalf of dealers for transporting vehicles to their premises. The appellants did not include RDCs in the assessable value of vehicles sold to dealers. The issue arose when the appellants adjusted excess RDC collections against short recoveries and paid excise duty on the differential excess amount under protest. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the refund claim but ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. Both parties appealed against this decision. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in a similar matter where it was held that excess amounts collected from dealers were includable in the assessable value and chargeable to duty. However, this decision was later set aside by the High Court, leading to a fresh decision by the Tribunal in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to support its conclusion. The Commissioner had based the decision on the earlier Tribunal order, which was no longer valid due to the High Court's intervention. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter for a fresh decision considering the latest legal precedents. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner to reconsider the case in light of the latest legal developments and decisions cited by the Tribunal.
|
