2021 (10) TMI 892 - SC - Central Excise

Demand u/s 11D - Collection of amount in the name of duty - Cash recovery of Money Credit Scheme - applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Much emphasis was placed on the last sentence appearing in the said circular, which predicates that the manufacturer is utilized to pay duty on any finished excisable product and which duty is collected from the buyer. This expression, though, wide enough but cannot travel beyond Section 11D of the Act and in reference to the Board Circular Bearing No. 216/50/96-CS, dated 4-6-1996, referred to in the stated circular dated 7-8-2002. Besides this, nothing more is required to be said. The claim set up in the Writ Petition, therefore, has been rightly negated by the High Court. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 45/89-C.E. (N.T.), applicability of Circular No. 651/42/2002-CX, relevance of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the claim in the Writ Petition.

Interpretation of Notification No. 45/89-C.E. (N.T.):
The Supreme Court acknowledged the view taken by the High Court regarding Notification No. 45/89-C.E. (N.T.), dated 11-10-1989, as a possible view. This indicates that the High Court's interpretation of the notification was considered reasonable by the Supreme Court.

Applicability of Circular No. 651/42/2002-CX:
The petitioner relied on Circular No. 651/42/2002-CX, dated 7-8-2002, in their argument. However, the Supreme Court found that this circular does not apply to the facts of the case. The circular specifically deals with the applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the cash recovery of Money Credit Scheme thereunder. The Court emphasized that the circular's content should be limited to the scope of Section 11D and the Board Circular Bearing No. 216/50/96-CS referred to in it.

Relevance of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The judgment highlighted that the expression in the circular, despite being broad, cannot extend beyond the provisions of Section 11D of the Act. The Court referenced a Board Circular dated 4-6-1996 mentioned in the circular dated 7-8-2002. It was made clear that the circular's content should be understood within the framework of Section 11D and related guidelines.

The claim in the Writ Petition:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the claim presented in the Writ Petition was appropriately dismissed by the High Court. The Court stated that no further elaboration was necessary beyond this point. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved by the Court. This signifies the final decision of the Supreme Court on the matter, affirming the High Court's ruling on the claim in the Writ Petition.