9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aram, Vice-President]. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,85,09,688/-against the appellants, under the provisions of Section 11D(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the entire amount of Rs. 4,29,32,929/- collected by them from merchant-manufacturers through debit notes w.e.f. 16-12-1998 till Feb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich did not involve sale. The contention of the appellants that the provisions of Section 11D are not attracted in cases where goods are removed/cleared without effecting their sale, therefore, has substance, in the light of the Apex Court s decision in paragraph 97 of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). The submission of the learned SDR that the expressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns the processed fabrics, is not tenable for the reason that only in the case of a sale transaction there will be a buyer of goods, and the case of the department itself is that no sale was involved in the transaction between the grey fabric supplier (merchant-manufacturer) and the processor. 4. There is yet another reason why the provisions of Section 11D cannot be held to be attracted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any charges but after the introduction of such scheme, they continued to collect processing charges through commercial bills but started raising debit notes for handling and service charges. For this reason also, we agree with the appellants that the provisions of Section 11D are not attracted in the facts of this case. 5. Further, the provisions of Section 11D are inapplicable to units operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
