2019 (11) TMI 1201 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Demand u/s 11D - Recovery of Central Excise duty - money was collected by the respondent from its customers but in the relevant documents like invoice bills etc. raised by them, it was not stated that any particular sum was collected on account of central excise - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that on these submissions, it is difficult to throw out the appeal at the admission stage. We admit the appeal to be heard on questions which are based on the arguments of Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Maity - Since the respondent is represented by learned counsel, issuance and service of the notice of appeal are dispensed with. List the appeal for hearing on 11th December, 2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Collection of money by the respondent without specifying excise duty in relevant documents.
2. Interpretation of section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Precedent set by tribunal decisions and acceptance by the department.
4. Application of Supreme Court decision in Boving Fouress Ltd. case.

Analysis:
1. The respondent collected money from customers without specifying excise duty in relevant documents like invoice bills. The tribunal noted this discrepancy in its order, raising concerns about the non-disclosure of the specific amount collected on account of central excise.

2. The respondent's argument relied on a tribunal decision from 2007, Mayfair Polymers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, which stated that section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not attracted if collections were made without specifying excise duty. This interpretation of the law formed a crucial part of the case.

3. The department accepted the tribunal's decision in response to queries from the respondent, as evidenced by RTI authorities' responses dated 11th May, 2017, and 6th November, 2019. This acceptance of the tribunal's decision added weight to the respondent's position in the case.

4. The Supreme Court's ruling in Boving Fouress Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, highlighted the principle that once a department accepts a tribunal's decision in one case, it cannot raise the same point in other cases. The court cited various precedents to support this principle, emphasizing the need for consistency in departmental decisions.

In conclusion, the court admitted the appeal for further hearing based on the arguments presented by both counsels. The respondent's collection of excise duty on exempted goods and the application of section 11D were key points of contention. The court's decision to allow the appeal to proceed indicated the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved, particularly regarding the interpretation of relevant laws and the application of precedent in similar cases.