9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. ORDER Appeals No. E/1230/08 and E/1231/08 are by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 36-37/BPL/2008 dated 15-4-2008. The Cross Objections Nos. 379/08 and 380/2008 by the assessee are connected to these appeals. These appeals and Cross Objections are disposed of by this common order. 2 Heard both sides. 3 The respondents have two units in close proximity to ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the credit taken) should be treated as amount collected as excise duty and same was recoverable in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority confirmed the demand from Unit I amounting to Rs. 4,79,391/- as excess duty paid by Unit I in terms of Section 11D read with Section 11A. The original authority also confirmed the demand from Unit II amounting to Rs. 2,11, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections about the quantum of duty paid on such inputs cleared by them. The excess duty paid by them stands credited to the accounts of Central Government. There is no recovery by the respondents in excess of what was deposited to the Central Government and therefore provisions of Section 11D are not applicable. He also submits that in respect of inputs cleared during the period from 13-6-05 to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce (India) Ltd. and such job workers who received the inputs from unit No. 1 cannot be treated as buyers. Section 11D applies to a situation where "every person who is liable to pay duty under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention to evade payment of duty. Whatever duty was paid by the respondents was available as credit to the other unit. The allegation that the respondents enabled other units to avail excess credit intentionally is thus not corroborated. Therefore, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals), the demand relating to the period 13-6-05 to 17-2-06 having been raised by the show cause notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
