9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to indicate the excise duty payable at the time of clearances of the goods - no evidence has been produced to indicate that they have shown an amount of duty more than the what they have paid to department in such assessment documents and collected such higher amounts and hence no case is made out for seeking recovery under Section 11D - The applicants had made out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre deposit of dues - pre deposit of dues waived and stayed during the pendency of the appeal – stay granted. - Appeal No.-86/2012 - ORDER NO.S-471/KOL/13 - Dated:- 9-7-2013 - DR. D.M. MISRA AND DR. I.P. LAL, JJ. For the Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri D.K. Achary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and notice on the ground that the loss of 8% recovered by merging the same in the contract value, had to be deposited with the Government under the provisions of Section 11D of CEA, 1944 as the same had been collected as duty from the customers. The Ld. Advocate submitted that even though the rate contracts were revised on the price revision, taking into account the loss of 8%, but they have not recovered the same in the input invoices showing it as an amount , in lieu of excise duty. He has submitted that the Ld. Commr. in his finding as categorically observed that they have not recovered this amount by showing the same in the respective invoices. The Ld. Advocate further placed reliance on the judgements of this Tribunal wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit 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 separately in the invoices during the relevant period. We find that the judgements cited by the Ld. Advocate are prima facie applicable to the facts of the present case. This Tribunal in the case of Mayfair Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) at para 9 observed as follows: While the contract might have indicated the ruling rates of excise, the excise duty collected should be with reference to the document mentioned in section 12A of the Central Excise Act viz. Document relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
