TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 to 31.5.2004 - Held that:- However, after decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. (2006 (10) TMI 171 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), the Board has examined the circular and clarified that in the case of payment made under erstwhile Rule 57CC(1) corresponding to Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Section 11D of the Act is not applicable since the amount of 8% or 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to the impugned goods, which were cleared at nil rate of duty after the respondent-assessee reversed 8% of total price of such goods cleared during the period from 1.3.2003 to 31.5.2004. In the impugned order, it has been held that the assessee could not have collected amount 8% reversed by them and once it is collected from the customers, as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparately on invoice as an amount (not as excise duty) Section 11D would not get attracted. In that case the amount of 8% would have to be calculated on the total price charged from the buyer. (c) In case the amount of 8% or for that matter any amount representing an excise duty is recovered from buyer Section 11D gets attracted. This is a matter of fact to be ascertained on the basis of docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
