TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12A of CEA, 1944 - appeal allowed. - E/515 & 516/2010 EX [DB] - A/71037-71038/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narasimhan (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr) AR for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeals are directed against common Order-in-Original No.55/Commr/M-II/2009 dated 30/11/2009 passed by Commissioner, Customs Central Excise, Meerut-II. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that manufacturer appellant was engaged in manufacturing Kraft paper, Writing and Printing paper falling under Chapter sub Heading Nos.4804.90 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 53,27,778/- should not be demanded and recovered from the appellant under Sub-Section (2) of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority through their submissions in reply to said show cause notice which was received by the Original Authority on 20.08.2009, wherein appellant contended after producing the text of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 that unless the amount representing duty of excise is shown separately in the invoices raised on the buyer and collected from the buyer the provisions of Section 11D cannot be invoked. They further stated the fact that price was inclusive of excise duty is also not relevant unless the amount of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le goods as representing the excise duty then such excise duty collected from the purchaser of goods is required to be recovered and credited to exchequer under the provisions of said Section 11D. He has submitted that Revenue has accepted in the said show cause notice that goods were cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 49/2003. Therefore, they were not a person who were liable to pay duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 and there was no evidence which indicated that any duty paying documents established that they had collected Central Excise Duty more than they were required to pay and they were not required to pay excise duty and they did not collect more amount from purchaser in the name of Central Excise Duty and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
