2006 (2) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act regarding pre-deposit of amounts collected as Excise Duty; Retroactive application of rule amendment.

In this case, the appellant challenged an order directing them to pre-deposit amounts collected as Excise Duty during 1997-98 and 1998-99, which were not deposited to the department as per Section 11D(2) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant had collected 8% of the sale price of exempted goods under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that a previous case had established that the 8% collected was not considered duty and thus not required to be deposited. The respondent, however, contended that a rule amendment necessitated the deposit of the amount. The appellant maintained that the amendment did not have retrospective effect. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the previous order and granted a stay on the pre-deposit, allowing an out-of-turn hearing and listing similar matters for the same day.

The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act concerning the pre-deposit of amounts collected as Excise Duty. The appellant argued that a previous decision had established that the 8% collected by them was not considered duty and therefore did not need to be deposited. On the other hand, the respondent contended that a rule amendment now required the deposit of such amounts. The Tribunal had to determine whether the rule amendment applied retrospectively or not. The Tribunal ultimately decided in favor of the appellant, granting a stay on the pre-deposit and allowing an expedited hearing due to the issue being covered by a previous order.

The case involved a dispute regarding the pre-deposit of amounts collected as Excise Duty by the appellant during specific periods. The appellant had collected 8% of the sale price of exempted goods under a particular rule. The appellant relied on a previous case to argue that the collected amount was not considered duty and thus was not required to be deposited. Conversely, the respondent pointed out a rule amendment that, according to them, mandated the deposit of such amounts. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the issue was already addressed in a prior order, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant, granting a stay on the pre-deposit and expediting the hearing process.