TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether transportation charges were includable in the assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 for goods transferred by the assessee to its own establishment for installation at site; (ii) whether refund of the amount deposited ad hoc in protest was admissible, subject to unjust enrichment.
Issue (i): Whether transportation charges were includable in the assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 for goods transferred by the assessee to its own establishment for installation at site.
Analysis: The valuation of goods taken for captive consumption was governed by Rule 6(b)(ii). The rule contemplated inclusion of the cost of manufacture and allied elements, but there was no provision for adding transportation charges from the factory to the site. The goods were not sold from a depot after removal, but were transferred to the assessee's own establishment for use in installation work. On that basis, subsequent transportation charges were held to be outside the assessable value.
Conclusion: Transportation charges were not includable in the assessable value and the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether refund of the amount deposited ad hoc in protest was admissible, subject to unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The deposit was made pursuant to a recorded statement that it was under protest, and the assessments were also treated as provisional. Since the valuation issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the amount deposited was held refundable. At the same time, refund was made subject to verification that the duty burden had not been passed on, so the principles of unjust enrichment were required to be applied before granting the refund.
Conclusion: The refund was admissible, but it had to be granted only after compliance with the bar of unjust enrichment and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with relief on valuation and with refund directed subject to scrutiny under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Ratio Decidendi: In captive-consumption valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii), transportation charges from the factory to the assessee's own site are not includable in assessable value unless the rule expressly provides for them, and a deposit made under protest may be refunded subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 
