9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial Counsel ORDER Per DR.D.M. MISRA: This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2.12 crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Ld. Sr. Advocate Dr. Samir Chakraborty has submitted that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Ductile Iron Pipes and Pipe Fittings falling under Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from their customers by merging the same in their sale value. Consequently, the applicant stopped the payment of 8% as they have started maintaining separate accounts for the inputs consumed in the manufacture of dutiable goods and these exempted goods. The Department has issued a demand notice on the ground that the loss of 8% recovered by merging the same in the contract value, had to be deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by showing in the respective invoices, provision of Section 11D would not be attracted. In support of this, he has referred to the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Poddar Industrial Corpn. Vs. CCE, Patna -2003 (158) ELT 473 (T) followed by Commr. of Central Excise Aurangabad Vs. Tapi R.C.C. reported in 2005 (186) ELT 107 (T) and Bata India Limited Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2007 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the Applicant is required to deposit the amount collected by them from their customers by revising their contracts, including therein, the loss of 8% collected in lieu of Duty. We find from the records and categorical finding of the Commissioner that they have not collected the said amounts showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id to department in such assessment documents and collected such higher amounts and hence no case is made out for seeking recovery under Section 11D. We do not find it necessary to repeat the observations by this Tribunal in other cases. In view of the specific finding of this Tribunal in Mayfairs case and in absence of any contrary judgement produced by the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
