Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 751 - CESTAT MUMBAIRetrospectivity of Provisions - the demand prior to 20.9.1991 covered under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act or not – Held that:- Partial exemption was granted to the manufacturer of sugar who were covered under the notifications – The notifications never authorized sugar manufacturer to collect more excise duty and pay less and retain the difference – Following Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad2005 (3) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – the incentive granted to the sugar manufacturer does not permit them to collect more duty than what is payable to the Revenue department - the appellants are collective more duty from customers and are paying less with the Central Government. Suppression with intent to evade payment of duty – Held that:- The appellant filed classification list whereby the appellant claimed concessional rate of duty as per the Incentive Scheme - the corresponding sale bills show collection of higher duty form the customers - it cannot be said that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable - the incentive granted to the sugar manufacturers did not permit them to collect more than what they had themselves paid from their customers - If they collected by way of excise duty more than what is dues, then by virtue of Section11D of the Central Excise Act, the assessee is bound to deposit excess amount with the Government - the incentives granted to be Appellants did not permit them to collect, more than what they had themselves paid, from their customers - If they collected by way of excise, more than what they had paid, then by virtue of Section 11D they were bound to deposit that amount with the Government – Decided against Assessee.
|