9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts in respect of inputs meant for used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods. They paid 10% on the value of total price of exempted final product in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and collected the same from their customers. A show-cause notice dated 22.5.2007 was issued proposing the demand of an amount of Rs.12,54,998/- in the month of December 2004 under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of Rs.12,54,998/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. 4. The learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods in terms of Rule 57CC at the time of removal of the goods from the factory. The amounts so paid were recovered by them from their customers. The Larger Bench observed as under:- 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessees had paid 8% of the value of the goods in terms of Rule 57CC at the time of removal of the goods from the factory. The amounts so paid are the amounts recovered by them from their buyers. Thus, in the present cases, no amounts collected from the buyers remain unpaid to the revenue, irrespective of whether those amounts were represented in the sales documents as duty or not. In fact, the invoices referred to the payment in di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w debit entry in their PLA. This makes it clear that the appellants have not retained the amount collected from the customers and that they have passed on the amount to the Government as provided under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. Hence the charge of contravention of the provisions of Section 11D is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. We find that the above view taken by the Tribunal is in conformity with the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries, that repeat payment of excise duty is not contemplated. 7. It has also observed that what is relevant is only whether the collection was represented as duty of excise. In the present case, I find that the amount me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
