9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncreased from 15% to 16%. These changes were made effective from 27/28-2-1999 (midnight). The Appellant's Bhopal Depot had been receiving duty paid HSD from Koyali (Gujarat) and Manmad. The allegation against the appellant is that while on 27-2-1999, the closing stock of HSD was 6253420 litres along with stock in transit of 72700 litres received on 1-3-1999, on which duty had been paid at pre-budget rates, the same was sold at post-budget price, which included AED of Re. 1/- per litre and BED at 1% higher rate and in this manner - (a) An additional amount of Rs. 63,26,120/- has been collected as AED; and (b) An additional amount of Rs. 3,46,988/- has been collected as BED; and this amount, totalli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the goods, while the appellant in respect of the goods, in question, are not the person liable to pay the duty as the HSD, in question, had been received from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (IOCL), Koyali and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Manmad installations and it is IOCL, Koyali and BPCL, Manmad who had paid duty on the HSD and, hence, the provisions of Section 11D are not applicable to the appellant, that the provisions of Section 11D are applicable only to manufacturers/producers who are liable to pay duty on the goods cleared by them and the same are not applicable to dealers who sell the duty paid goods received from the manufacturers/producers, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nior Departmental Representative defended the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that increase in the price of HSD by the appellant was due to levy of AED and increase in BED rate and in respect of the goods, in question, the duties had been paid at pre-budget rates. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. Section 11D(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is as under :- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any court or in any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, every person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in excess of the excise actually assessed and paid by X, provisions of Section 11D(1) would not be applicable to A. This is what the Apex Court has held in case of C.C.E., Meerut v. BPCL reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 654 (S.C.). In other words, though Section 11D is an extension of the principle of unjust enrichment incorporated in Section 11B pertaining to duty refund, the Legislature in its wisdom has confirmed its operation only to the "person liable to pay the excise duty" and has paid the duty assessed/determined on the same, i.e., the manufacture or production of excisable goods. 7. In this case, the show cause notice itself mentions that the 6326120 litres of HSD in respect of which the appellant are alleged to have recovered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
