Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (5) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... collected can be retained in view of the fact that Section 11D provides that Every person who has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. 3. The facts of the case are that scrutiny of the documents revealed that the appellants had collected excess amount as duty of excise during the period after 20-9-1990. Section 11D was introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 20-9-1991. The lower authorities held that the amounts collected as Central Excise duty should be deposited forthwith. Being aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed the present ten appeals. 4. Arguing these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that 11D perusal would show that it restricts only the order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any court or any other provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules if the same is contrary to provisions of Section 11D. He submits that it is pertinent to note that this section does restrict the provision contained in any other law as such. He submits that the scheme under which the appellants were entitled to avail the benefit cannot be brushed aside by the provisions of Section 11D. He submits that if the intention of the Government was to withdraw the incentive scheme of 1987 then they should have rescinded the Notification Nos. 130 131/83-C.E. He submits that these notifications continued up to 1994 and that the scheme was disco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... scheme, from so much of the additional duty of excise leviable thereon under the Additional Duty of Excise Act, 1957 as is in excess of amount collected at the rate of Rs. 19 per quintal. He submitted that similar notification was issued exempting sugar factories on clearance of sugar as additional entitlement under the incentive scheme from so much duty of excise leviable thereon under the said Act at the rate specified in the first Schedule as in excess of amount collected at the rate of 19/- per quintal. The ld. SDR submitted that these two notifications permitted the specified sugar factories to clear the additional entitlement at a particular rate and did not authorise these specified sugar factories to collect any amount in excess of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cessional rate under Notification Nos. 130/83 131/83-C.E. but in the invoices they were collecting duty as was applicable to free sale sugar, meaning thereby they were collecting additional sums as duty. The Department observed that this difference became known only when they scrutinised the invoice of the appellants, therefore, the Revenue issued a show cause notice asking them to explain as to why the amount so collected should not be demanded from them and confirmed these demands. The contention of the appellants was that the provisions of Section 11D were not applicable to them. Firstly, that part of the demand belonged to the period before 20-9-1991 and that susequently on or after 20-9-1991. Since the scheme of incentive was not wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ected as duty before 20-9-1991 the amounts collected as differential duty shall have to be dealt with under Section 4(4)(d)(ii)(a). 10. We note that the limitation was also argued before us. From the facts placed before us, we find that the appellants were collecting differential duty in their invoices and copies of invoices were not attached with the RT 12 returns. This collection of differential duty was noticed as a result of scrutiny of other documents. Thus, there was suppression of facts and mis-statement. Since the less amount of duty was paid, there was an intention to evade payment of duty. In the circumstances, we hold that the period of demand beyond six months has rightly been invoked and is sustainable in law. 11. A plea of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates