2012 (6) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Dropping of demand raised u/s 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Lower authority have rightly dropped demand on the ground that for invoking the provisions of Section 11D, two conditions have to be fulfilled viz. the person should be liable to pay the duty under Central Excise Act and the duty collected in excess by the said person represent the duty of Central Excise as well as on the ground that no documentary evidence, to the effect that the excess amount collected on account of upward revision of price was representing Central Excise, has been brought on record - Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the recoverability of excess amount collected by the respondent as Excise duty on petroleum products.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. KS/345/Daman/2006, wherein the respondent-assessee was held not liable to pay the excess amount collected under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the absence of the respondent during the proceedings, the Tribunal proceeded with the appeal for disposal. The key contention was whether the excess amount collected by the respondent, representing Excise duty on petroleum products, was recoverable. Both lower authorities had concurred that the respondent was not obligated to pay the amount to the Revenue. The first appellate authority cited relevant case laws, including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE Aurangabad and M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur, to support the decision of dropping the demand under Section 11D. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the correctness and legality of the impugned order.

The Tribunal reviewed the case laws presented by the first appellate authority and affirmed that the lower authorities correctly relied on them to conclude that the respondent was not liable to pay the amount under Section 11D. It was noted that both lower authorities had adhered to judicial discipline by following Tribunal orders in similar situations, including a case involving the same assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be legally sound and free from any defects, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.