9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the Rules made thereunder from the buyers of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Govt. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant was not liable to pay any duty of excise inasmuch as the goods were exempted. It is only that in the month of March, 2003, when their final product was brought under the duty, the respondents started collecting duty @ 8% from their customers. However, when they felt that such duty is not required to be paid to the Revenue, they returned the such collected duty to their customers by way of raising credit notes. In te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clearances up to Rs. 100 lakhs were exempted from the payment of duty and the respondents were entitled to clear their goods at nil rate of duty. 3. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the respondents for recovery of the said amount u/s 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest u/s 11DD of the said Act. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order, respondents filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal by observing as under :- 5. I have gone through the case records, submissions made by the appellants in appeal memorandum and at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y duty on any excisable goods but accumulated with them only which was later on returned to their customers through Credit Notes. Appellants had returned the amount collected as duty to the buyers through credit notes, therefore, I hold as the duty shown in the invoices was returned to the customers, there was nothing for depositing with the Govt. on 31-3-2003. The fact was got verified from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner who submitted his report dated 25-4-2005 that M/s. Vinayak Agrotech had returned the amount of Excise duty by cheque to the concerned buyers, therefore, I find that the contention of the appellants is correct. I further find that adjudicating authority has erred in applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the Rules made thereunder from the buyers of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Govt. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant was not liable to pay any duty of excise inasmuch as the goods were exempted. It is only that in the month of March, 2003, when their final product was brought under the duty, the respondents started collecting duty @ 8% from their customers. However, when they felt that such duty is not required to be paid to the Revenue, they returned the such collected duty to their customers by way of raising credit notes. As such it cannot be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
