TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APPEAL NO: E/463, 1368/2010 - A/85708-85709/2019 - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Appellant: Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate with Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate Respondent: Shri A.B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: Ajay Sharma The instant appeals have been filed from the order-in-original no. P-I/VSK/267/2009 dated 23.12.2009 and order-in-original no. PI/ VSK/68/ 2010 dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-I. The issue involved is whether the Appellants are entitled for refund 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07,546/- paid by them under protest. A show cause notice dated 23.06.2009 was issued to the appellants proposing to reject the refund claim on various grounds including unjust entrenchment. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.09.2009 allowed the refund claim of the Appellants but ordered to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the Appellants have failed to rebut the presumption of unjust entrenchment. Both the appellants as well as Revenue filed separate appeals against the aforesaid order dated 24.09.2009 before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. In the mean time, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.11.2009, in the matter of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2010 (252) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved, the appellants have filed the instant Appeals. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. While going through the impugned orders we find that the Learned Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the appellants and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue mainly in view of the earlier decision dated 20.11.2009 of this Tribunal reported in 2010(252) ELT 193(Tri.-Mum). But since then much water has flown under the bridge. The aforesaid order dated 20.11.2009 was set aside by the Hon ble High Court as mentioned supra and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. Upon remand, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
