2013 (12) TMI 575 - AT - Central Excise

Demand u/s 11D of Central Excise Act - Goods cleared from depot at revised price Excess amount charged - Held that - Following BPCL Vs. CCE 2002 (5) TMI 107 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI - No evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that what was collected as prices by the appellants from their buyers represented the amount of Central Excise duty the demands under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act 1944 are not sustainable order set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act regarding the collection of excess amount representing excise duty by manufacturers of Petroleum Products and the subsequent demand made by the Revenue.

Analysis:
The appellants, as manufacturers of Petroleum Products, were clearing goods at revised prices set by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Revenue alleged that the appellants collected excess amounts representing excise duty due to price changes, leading to demands under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal examined the issue in light of previous judgments, emphasizing that evidence must establish that the collected amount represents excise duty. The Tribunal noted the absence of such evidence and dismissed the Revenue's claim, citing the Board's Circular and the mechanism for fixing petroleum product prices by the Oil Coordination Committee. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue failed to prove that increased prices equated to Central Excise duty collection, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving BPCL where the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, reinforcing the principle that demands under Section 11D are not applicable when the collected amount does not represent excise duty. The Attorney General's opinion and subsequent CBEC instructions further supported this stance, emphasizing the need to examine each case post-amendment to Section 11D individually based on merit. The Tribunal concluded that demands under Section 11D in the present appeals were unsustainable, echoing the prior judgments and setting aside the impugned orders while allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.

In summary, the Tribunal's analysis centered on the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act concerning the collection of excess amounts as excise duty by Petroleum Product manufacturers. The Tribunal scrutinized previous judgments, lack of evidence, and regulatory mechanisms for price fixation to conclude that demands under Section 11D were not justified in the appellants' case. The alignment with previous decisions, Supreme Court rulings, and CBEC instructions guided the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals, emphasizing the need for factual evidence to support excise duty collection claims.