9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for exemption, it is not open to the central excise authority to overrule that certification, the exemption was allowed - benefit of exemption allowed. Demand u/s 11D - Revenue held that since the contracted amount is inclusive of excise duty, when the appellant enjoyed exemption from excise duty, the amount collected should be construed as inclusive of excise duty and the said amount should have been deposited to the Govt. under Section 11D - Held that: - in appellant own case as mentioned above, it was held that there is no evidence that the sales document namely invoices etc. indicated any excise duty separately so that the buyer has paid any money representing excise duty to the appellant. In the absence of such situation, the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 11D. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. It is brought to our notice that in respect of the very same appellant, with reference to their Tirunelveli unit, the very same dispute was brought before the Tribunal for a decision. The Tribunal vide Final Order no. 41985-41988 / 2017 dated 06.09.2017 held as under:- 8. On the first issue regarding the liability of the appellant under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, we note that all supplies of pipes are made in terms of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional District Collectors. The certificates categorically mentioned the requirement of pipes for the projects referring to the above mentioned Notification. However, the Revenue held a view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said section stipulates that any person who has collected any amount in excess of duty assessed shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. Sub-section (1A) is added with effect from 10.5.2008 and the same is not applicable to the period in dispute in the present appeals. Sub-section (1) only talks about collecting any amount in excess of excise duty, representing as excise duty. Apparently, in the present case, the invoice raised by the appellant did not represent any excise duty. However, Revenue proceeded against them only on the inference that the contract being inclusive of duty payable it will necessarily lead to a conclusion that the excise duty element is inbuilt and the appellant did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
