9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 726 - HC - Central ExciseDuty demand u/s 11D - Whether for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 11D, one need to be a manufacturer of goods or would it suffice if he is liable to pay duty of excise. The refinery/depots/installations of the Oil Companies are extended arms of the respective companies and have to be treated as a single entity - Held that - In terms of Section 11D of the Act, the demand can only be made from the manufacturer of the goods and if any duty amount is collected in any manner as representing duty of excise. - issue has been finally put to rest by the Supreme Court (sic) in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in 2013 (12) TMI 880 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . Therefore, since we find that the issue had already been resolved by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee, nothing remains to be considered in this appeal. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding liability to pay duty and collection of excess excise duty. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 11D: The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The question raised was whether a person needs to be a manufacturer of goods or just liable to pay duty of excise for invoking the provisions of Section 11D. The Tribunal held that the demand under Section 11D can only be made from the manufacturer of the goods who has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments like HPCL Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, BPCL Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, and BPCL v. CCE to support this interpretation. 2. Facts of the Case: The case involved M/s. Hindustal Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) holding a Central Excise Registration Certificate for storage and sale of duty paid/bonded petroleum products. The dispute arose when the Department alleged that HPCL had collected amounts representing Central Excise Duty from buyers in excess of the duty paid by them, which was not credited to the Central Government Account. A show cause notice was issued, and the demand was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. The Oil Marketing Companies, including IOCL, HPCL, and BPCL, challenged this before the Tribunal. 3. Arguments of the Respondent/Assessee: The respondent argued that for demanding an amount under Section 11D, certain conditions needed to be satisfied, including the person being liable to pay duty, the collection of excess amount on excisable goods, and the collection representing the duty of excise. The respondent contended that these conditions must be met to invoke Section 11D. 4. Supreme Court Ruling: The judgment highlighted that the issue in question had already been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal found that there was no need for further consideration in the present appeal. 5. Conclusion: The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, citing that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee. The judgment did not award any costs in the circumstances of the case.
|
