2017 (4) TMI 269 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the incentives granted to the appellant permit them to collect excise duty, more than they had themselves paid, from their customers, if they collected by way of excise more than what they had paid, then by virtue of Section 11D of CEA, 1944 were they bound to deposit that amount with the Govt? Held that - The questions involved in the present case have been answered by a Division Bench s decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-I Versus M/s Apco Pharma Ltd. & Others, M/s Janardhan Plyboard Industries Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 38 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT , where the Court has taken a view that a manufacturer obtains credit for the Excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately and there is no provision in the Rules which provide for a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G against the order dated 13-5-2011.
1. Whether incentives allow collecting more excise duty than paid, requiring deposit with the Govt?
2. Should the party be vigilant as per the law's provisions?

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to whether incentives granted to the appellant permit them to collect excise duty exceeding what they paid and if they are obligated to deposit the surplus amount with the Government. The Court referenced a Division Bench's decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, emphasizing that a manufacturer immediately obtains credit for excise duty paid on raw materials upon receipt, and there is no provision for reversal of credit by the excise authorities. The Court highlighted that the excise duty credit is indefeasible once validly taken, and there is no time limitation for its utilization unless the manufacturer chooses not to use the raw material in the excisable product. The judgment concluded that the questions of law in this appeal are resolved against the department and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around whether the party should exercise vigilance and care in their actions and business nature as per the legal provisions. The Court did not delve into this issue in detail in the judgment, as the primary focus was on the interpretation of the excise duty credit rules and the obligations of the appellant regarding the collection and payment of excise duty. Consequently, the judgment did not provide an extensive analysis or specific ruling on the vigilance aspect raised in the second question.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad delivered a judgment in a Central Excise Appeal concerning the collection and payment of excise duty by the appellant. The Court relied on precedents and legal provisions to establish that excise duty credit is immediately available to manufacturers upon receipt of raw materials, and once validly taken, the credit is indefeasible without any time limitation for utilization. The judgment favored the assessee, dismissing the appeal against the department. The Court did not extensively address the issue of vigilance raised in the second question but focused primarily on the interpretation of excise duty credit rules and obligations regarding the collection and payment of excise duty.