9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication either in the original or in the remand proceedings itself will not amount to delay in issuing the demand. There is no time limit prescribing within which an adjudication, after denovo proceedings has to be completed. Similarly, there is no time limit within which the appeals have to be disposed of. Such delays are certainly highly undesirable but they do not vitiate the proceedings of the adjudication nor do they override the statutory provisions of Sec.11D. It cannot be accepted that delay in taking up the adjudication proceedings denovo would vitiate the demand under Section 11D - the demand under Section 11D in the impugned order is liable to be upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/3012/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quintal to the excise department. The provisions of Sec.11D were introduced in 1991 and for the period in question viz., September, 1991 to August, 1993, the department issued a show cause notice on 27.02.1996 demanding that the amounts collected from their customers as excise duty and by them may be remitted to the Government as per Sec.11D. There was no allegation in the show cause notice that the conditions of the scheme formulated by the Government were not fulfilled or the amounts so retained were not used for the purpose for which the scheme was intended. After due process the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand vide Order-in- Original No. C Ex 22/97 dated 22.10.1997 and the appellant appealed against the same. CESTAT vide Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the assessee was bound to deposit excess amount with the Government under Sec.11D. Similarly, in the case of K. Sahakari Ch. Mills [2014 (299) ELT 275 (Allahabad)] the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad while referring to the exact same scheme held that assessee cannot retain the differential amount and is bound to deposit the same under Sec.11D. Both these judgments of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay and Hon ble High Court of Allahabad relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills [2005 (182) ELT 26 (SC)]. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a similar though not identical case of New Holland Tractors India Pvt Ltd [2017 (347) ELT 7 (All.)] the Hon ble High court of All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echanism under Sec.11D. In a similar case of New Holland Tractors India Pvt Ltd (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad held that the differential amount need not be deposited under Sec.11D. On this exact scheme of sugar factories both the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jalna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (supra) and the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of K. Sahakari Ch. Mills (supra) held that the applicant is liable to deposit the entire sum collected from the purchasers and cannot be permitted to retain the differential amount of duty. We have also considered the argument of the learned counsel that the Asst. Commissioner has given them a letter almost 11 years after the amendment to Sec.11D was made providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
