2008 (12) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Duty Liability of a registered dealer - There is no dispute by the revenue that the present appellant is a registered dealer. We are unable to notice whether the registered dealer was by any means liable to pay duty when he is not a manufacturer. We also fail to understand that an assessee who is a registered dealer and not liable to be dealt by Section 11D of the Act how he is made liable under such provision. Held that the appellant being a public sector undertaking cannot be held to be liable. Therefore, we hold that the levy imposed on the appellant is unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to duty demand on a registered dealer.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the context of a duty demand on a registered dealer. The appellant argued that duty demand arose due to the invocation of Section 11D by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant contended that as a registered dealer dealing with excisable goods at the second stage of removal beyond the point of clearance, they should not be liable to duty, citing precedents such as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut and Sr. Terminal Manager, I.O.C. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore. On the other hand, the Department argued that the appellant had realized excess sales price which was not deposited, leading to the application of Section 11D. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no dispute that the appellant was a registered dealer and questioned the basis for holding a registered dealer liable for duty when they are not a manufacturer.

The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 11D and the arguments presented by both sides. They observed that the appellant, being a registered dealer and not liable to duty under Section 11D, should not be made liable under such provision. Relying on the citations provided by the appellant's Counsel, the Tribunal concluded that the levy imposed on the appellant was unsustainable. They further emphasized that as a public sector undertaking, the appellant could not be deemed to have acted in defiance of the law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Central Excise Act, especially in cases involving duty demands on registered dealers, and ensuring that the legal obligations are applied appropriately based on the specific circumstances of each case.