TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the duty element has not been passed on to their customers. The appellant has presented an arguable case for reconsideration of the matter. We therefore deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of both the issues - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/609/2009 - 42328/2017 - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants who are a 100% EOU of M/s. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai are engaged in the manufacture of pad assembly falling under CETH 87083900 of CETA, 1985. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PAD Assembly) were cleared on stock transfer basis from EOU to Warehouse. (b) Subsequently, when the PAD Assembly was sold to customers, in the sale invoice, sales Tax / Vat has been charged and recovered. (c) SAD was not charged in the said invoice. (d) The sale price is the same for all the sales (including the goods which suffered SAD and received in the warehouse for sale). (e) In view of the above, it can never be said that the subject goods which suffered SAD at the time of removal (to warehouse) when sold SAD was realized as the sale price of the subject PAD assembly was the same as is the price of the PAD assembly which were received on stock transfer basis without payment of SAD. (f) It is already on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sales Tax / VAT was deferred to the point of sale. As there is no exemption from VAT / Sales Tax, per se, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to them. With regard to unjust enrichment, he submitted that the authorities below have assumed that the appellants have passed on the incidence of duty to the customers. That their accounts would show that the duty element has not been passed on to their customers. Taking into consideration the argument put forward by the ld. counsel as well as the facts presented, we find that the appellant has presented an arguable case for reconsideration of the matter. We therefore deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of both the issues. 6. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
