TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have debited their RG 23A account while paying 8% under Rule 57CC and some invoices show debit entry in their PLA. This makes it clear that the appellants have not retained the amount collected from the customers and that they have passed on the amount to the Government as provided under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. Hence the charge of contravention of the provisions of Section 11D is not sustainable. The amount mentioned in the invoice as stated above was debited in their CENVAT account under Rule 6(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules. So, it was not retained by them and paid to the Government. - Demand cannot be made - Decided against the revenue. - E/265/2009 & E/CO/53/2009 - Final Order No. 40277/2014 - Dated:- 29-4-2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents collected this amount representing as duty which is squarely covered under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. He further submits that the Larger Bench had given a clear observation that if the amount is collected as duty it will be debited to the Government under Section 11D of the Act. He further submits that the respondent should not mention the amount in their invoices as the goods are exempted by Notification No. 3/2004-CE dated 6.1.2004. 5. On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel placed a copy of the invoice. It is seen from the invoice that the respondents mentioned the amount with a note materials cleared as per Notification No. 3/2004-CE dated 6.1.2004 CENVAT credit expunged at the rate 10% of the total v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is that amounts collected as duty should not be retained by the manufacturers and should be deposited with the revenue. This was the view that Division Bench took in the case of Nu-Wave shoes. We may read the relevant part of that order: Admittedly, Rule 57CC(1) is applicable in the present case. It is not the case of the Department that the assessees have been charging an amount over and above 8 of the price of the exempted variety of footwear from their customers and in fact, the show cause notice proceeds on the basis that only the amount reversed by debit in the credit account from 1-9-1996 to April, 1997 has been charged from the customers. For the period 23-7-1996 to 31-8-1996, the show cause notice itself recognise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
