9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same and the present appellant thereafter sold the same goods to various government hospitals/dispensaries etc. In respect of such traded goods, the price is fixed by NPPA under DPCO. The medicaments are sold at the price so fixed. However, appellant is buying the same medicaments from loan licensee at a discount of 26.5% or 12% to the price fixed by NPPA under DPCO. The case of the revenue is that NPPA while arriving at the price takes into account the normal excise duty payable on such medicaments. However, the appellant is getting the goods manufactured sometime from a loan licencee unit located in area where no such excise duty is payable. Hence according to the revenue, in such cases appellant is deemed to have collected excise duty fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri-Mum). It was also submitted that similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in -2012-TIOL-893-CESTAT-MAD. 3. Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterates the Order-in-Original and submits that NPPA while fixing the price takes into account the normal excise duty. Thus while arriving at the prices, excise duty element has been taken into account. Appellant are recovering the amount equivalent to the price fixed under NPPA and therefore, they have recovered the excise duty, element and they are therefore liable to deposit an amount equal to excise duty collected by them under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g mechanism has been charged from the buyers under relevant invoices. We do not find any amount has been charged representing the same as duty of excise. Therefore, one of the main ingredient to attract Section 11D is lacking in this case. 3. In view of above, since the depot of the HPCL has only recovered from the buyer the amount fixed under the administered pricing mechanism without collecting any amount representing the same as duty of excise, we are of the view that Section 11D is not attracted in this case. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 5. The position in the present case is similar to the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. IN fact in the present case appellant is not the manufacturer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
