9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the order of original adjudicating authority dropping the demand against the assessee, Revenue has further filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. As per facts on record respondents are engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r they started paying duty on such excess recoveries on account of freight. 3. Subsequently realizing that the said excess freight recovered by them from their customers is not to form part of the assessable value, they filed the refund claims within the period of limitation. Such refund claims were sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority by following the Supreme Court's decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The High Court in their decision reported as [2010 (252) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)] set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal, with certain observations. The Tribunal in remand proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat value of the goods was collected in the garb of the freight charges. There is no such evidence available much less any allegation in the present appeal. As such I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of the authorities below, which are based upon the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Revenue's appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Order pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
