9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. The appeal is directed by the applicant against the order of the Commissioner dated 8-10-2003 by which the Commissioner directed recovery of Rs. 43,24,933/- from the applicant under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against which an amount of Rs. 3,45,995/- already paid by the applicant was to be adjusted. Penalty of Rs. 1,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11D of the Act were inapplicable in the present case. The learned Counsel also submitted that the issue as to whether the provisions of Section 11D could be invoked in such cases, has been referred to a Larger Bench and, therefore, we should await the outcome of that reference. It appears that by order dated 23-2-2004 in Appeal No. E/1541/2003-Mum., the issue as to whether the amount of 8% debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is thus clear that the amount of excise duty at the rate of 8% was charged from the customers by the applicants under all these invoices. It is not shown whether original invoices bear the said rubber stamp. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, nil duty was payable on the final products, and, therefore, credit in respect of such inputs could not be claimed by the applicant. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Moreover, the nature of the invoices in the present case clearly indicate that the applicant had at various places in the invoices stated that the amount was being charged from the customers by way of excise duty. Since admittedly no excise duty was payable, Section 11D comes into play and pendency of similar issue cannot, by itself, operate as stay other matters having different nature of invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
