1999 (11) TMI 680 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11D and its impact on the enforcement of Notification Nos. 130/83-C.E. and 131/83-C.E.
2. Applicability of Section 11D based on the principle of unjust enrichment to government incentive schemes.
3. Legal validity of demands for depositing additional sums collected as Central Excise Duty under Section 11D.

Issue 1:
The case involved the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its effect on the enforcement of Notification Nos. 130/83-C.E. and 131/83-C.E. The appellants, engaged in sugar manufacturing, benefited from a government incentive scheme. The Tribunal held that with the introduction of Section 11D, no one was authorized to retain any amount collected as Central Excise Duty. The appellants collected excess amounts as duty post-20-9-1991. The Tribunal emphasized the need to deposit any such collected amount as duty forthwith. As the concessional duty rates continued until 1994, the Tribunal referred the legal issue to the Allahabad High Court for clarification, ultimately allowing the Reference Applications.

Issue 2:
The question of whether the provisions of Section 11D, focusing on unjust enrichment, apply to government incentive schemes was raised. The appellants collected duty at concessional rates but invoiced at higher rates, resulting in an excess collection of Central Excise Duty. The Tribunal ruled that Section 11D mandated the immediate deposit of any such additional amount collected as duty. The Tribunal highlighted that the difference between the amounts paid to the government and those collected from the appellants should be remitted promptly. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the obligation to pay the excess amount to the government without delay.

Issue 3:
The miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee contested the Tribunal's order demanding the immediate deposit of additional sums collected as Central Excise Duty under Section 11D. Citing a judgment from the Madras High Court in Eternit Everest Ltd. v. Union of India, the applicants argued against invoking Section 11A machinery for cases under Section 11D. The Madras High Court judgment emphasized that demands under Section 11D should not be subject to Section 11A procedures. Despite the liability remaining, the Tribunal rejected the applications for a stay on the final order, affirming the obligation to deposit the excess duty amounts without delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 11D, its application to government incentive schemes, and the legal validity of demands for depositing excess Central Excise Duty amounts, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decisions.