Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat/Modvat - Demand - Taxing statute - Whether the amount of 8% debited from the RG-23A Part II in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) and collected from the customers is required to be deposited with the Govt. in terms of the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 11D makes it clear that what is required is that amounts collected as duty should not be retained by the manufacturers and should be deposited with the revenue. 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. The scheme of the law is that manufacturers shall not collect amounts falsely representing them as central excise duty and retain them, thus, unjustly, benefiting themselves. In the present cases, (irrespective of whether the 8% payments were duty or not) since the 8% amount remain already paid to the revenue, and no amount is retained by the assessee, Section 11D has no application. The real identity of the amount 'collected' (whether excise duty payable or not) is of no relevance for Section 11D. What is relevant is only whether the collection was 'represented' as duty of excise. The representation may as well be entirely false. The qualifying of the representation through the words 'in any manner' makes this clear. Therefore, the contentions of both sides on the question, as to whether deposits under Rule 57CC are excise duty or not, are beside the point. In the result, this Larger Bench confirm the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Nu-Wave Shoes [2000 (9) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. Reference is answered as above and the appeals are returned to the original Bench for disposal.
|