1999 (11) TMI 667 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents collected Central Excise Duty from buyers without paying it to the Central Excise Department.
2. Applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the respondents.

Analysis:

1. The respondents were involved in manufacturing branded hand-made biris exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 111/83. The Department alleged that the respondents collected Central Excise Duty from buyers without remitting it to the authorities. The Commissioner of Central Excise accepted the respondents' explanation that the duty amount shown on invoices was paid on unbranded biris, not collected from buyers. Consequently, the Commissioner dropped the show-cause notice proceedings. The Revenue appealed against this decision, contending that the duty was indeed collected. The respondents, in their cross objections, argued that Section 11D was inapplicable to their case.

2. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the grounds of appeal and cross objections. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's order was unsustainable, while the respondents claimed the show cause notice was without jurisdiction due to the lack of machinery for recovery under Section 11D. Citing the Madras High Court case of Eternit Everest Ltd., the respondents argued that such demands were unenforceable without proper provisions. The Tribunal also considered decisions in other cases supporting this view. It held that the show cause notice was unauthorized and unsustainable in law, as there was no machinery provision for assessment or adjudication under Section 11D. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings was upheld, emphasizing the need to assess the notice's maintainability, as raised in the cross objections.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections, affirming that the show cause notice was invalid and the Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings was correct. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the legality of such notices and upheld the respondents' position regarding the inapplicability of Section 11D in their case.