9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the duty paid by them on Road Delivery Charges (RDC) collected by them from the dealers? 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, which are marketed through dealers. During the period in dispute, the appellant by way of agreement entered into with their dealers, sold their cars, ex-factory. It was the liability of the dealers/ buyers to take delivery of vehicles at the factory gate. However, for the sake of convenience of the dealers, the appellant undertook the transportation of the vehicles to the dealer's premises through transporter. They were incurring Road Deliverance Charges (in short RDC) on behalf of dealers and collecting the same from the dealers. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al vide order dated 20.11.2009, in the matter of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2010 (252) ELT 193 (Tri.-Mum) [another matter of the appellant herein], while distinguishing the decision of the Tribunal order dated 26.05.2008 (supra) held that the excess amount collected from the dealers over and above the actual amount incurred towards RDCs is includable in the assessable value and chargeable to duty. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd. and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.03.2010 reported in 2010 (252) ELT 168 (Bom.) set aside the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by this Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. Upon remand, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of assessee while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1997 (94) ELT 13(SC) and also relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Kothari Sugar and Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (192) ELT 447 (Tri.-Chennai). 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 dated 20.11.2009, is not in existence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
