https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378284 Refund orders directing credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund could not stand once the precedent on which they were based had been set aside. The later Tribunal position held that excess road delivery charges collected over actual expenditure were not includible in assessable value and did not amount to additional consideration under the valuation rules. As the foundation of the impugned orders no longer survived, the Commissioner was required to reconsider the appeals afresh in light of the later binding legal position, and the orders were set aside with remand. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:09:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378284 Refund orders directing credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund could not stand once the precedent on which they were based had been set aside. The later Tribunal position held that excess road delivery charges collected over actual expenditure were not includible in assessable value and did not amount to additional consideration under the valuation rules. As the foundation of the impugned orders no longer survived, the Commissioner was required to reconsider the appeals afresh in light of the later binding legal position, and the orders were set aside with remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378284