9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70/8/2008-CX dated 16/05/2008, under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with respect to amounts reimbursed to the appellant, equivalent to the payments made under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CCR, is not justified - confirmation u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944, with respect to amounts reimbursed to the appellant, equivalent to the payments made under Rule 6(3) (b) of the CCR, is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same issue has been decided by Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Unions Metals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I (supra), has made following observations in para 8 & 9 of this case law which is reproduced below: "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 different terms such as "8% reversal of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. We read para 97 of that judgment [Mafatlal Industries Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)]: "Meaning and Purport of Section 11D 97. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that Section 11D provides for double taxation. It was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen goods are sold. The purport of this section is in accord with Section 11B and cannot be faulted." 9. The scheme of Central Excise duty payment is that a manufacturer removed goods from the factory of production after payment of duty. While selling the goods, the manufacturer recovered the duty so paid. In doing so, an assessee is recouping the tax already paid. The arrangement is not that the assessee first collected the tax from the buyer of the goods and then remits the amount to the government. Section 11D has to be read keeping this scheme in view. Therefore, the provisions for every person who is liable to pay duty and has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods in any manner representing as duty of excise, shall forthwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
