9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati, Acid Oil, Soap Stock and Spent Nichel Catalyst falling under Sub-Heading Nos. 1504.00, 3823.00, 1507.00 and 2620.00 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants were availing exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002. At the time of imposition of duty on Vanaspati with effect from 1-3-2002, the appellants cleared the excisable goods during March, 2003 under proper invoices showing duty payable @ 8% ad valorem but charged Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,39,888/- from their customers and did not debit the same in their personal ledger accounts inasmuch as in terms of the said Notification, the clearances up to Rs. 100 lakhs were exempted from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether duty was leviable on their goods, whether duty was charged in excess than leviable or not, but he has invoked provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides that "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." From the above I find the appellant is not covered with any of the provisions of Section 11D ibid, i.e., (i) they are not liable to pay duty under the Act or the rules as they are availing of SSI exemption benefit, (ii) they have not collected any excess amount of duty assessed or determined, (iii) they have not paid any duty on any excisable goods but accumula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and the legal issues involved. Admittedly, it is not the case of refund of duty "paid" inasmuch as no duty was ever paid by the appellants to the Revenue. As such the provisions of unjust enrichment will not apply, as rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals). The ratio of law declared in the Larger Bench decision in the case of Grasim India was in respect of duty which was paid by the assessee and refund was claimed subsequently. The same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Considering the provisions of Section 11D, it is seen that the same are to the effect that every person who is liable to pay duty under this Act and the Rules made thereunder and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
