9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government under Section 11D(3) of the Central Excise Act. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under heading 48 of the CETA. On scrutiny of their record, it revealed that they by availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000 (S. No. 77), cleared the goods at Nil rate of duty. During the period March 2000, the said paper was exempted upto 210 MT, while during the period 2000-2001 the aggregate quantity of 3500 MT was exempted. The price list furnished by the appellants showed that the price of their product was inclusive of excise duty and they continued to charge the same price during the exemption as well as duty payment pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyers. He has further argued that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellants ever collected excise duty from the buyers. In the invoices, no amount of duty charged by them from the buyers had been indicated. The column BED was always left blank and this showed that no basic excise duty was charged from the buyers. Whenever, BED was charged from the buyers prior to exemption or after the exemption, the same had been independently and separately shown in the invoices. Therefore, according to the counsel, it could not be presumed that the price charged was inclusive of duty. The impugned order of the Commissioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. The learned JDR, on the other hand, only reiterated the correctness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price recovered by them from the buyers included the duty element also. In their invoices against the duty column, they had shown nil recovery of duty by putting the X. The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in ACCE v. Bata India Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164 and by Karnataka High Court in Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v. ACCE - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 48, referred by the learned Commissioner in the order, do not advance the case of the department for want of evidence to prove that the price charged by the appellants from the buyers represented the duty also. The judgments in both these cases had been rendered prior to the insertion of Section 11D. Sub-section (1) of said section enacts that every person who had collected from the buy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
