TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retained by the assessee, Section 11D has no application. As the amount collected from the buyers has already stand paid by the appellants, the provisions of Section 11D of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00042/2004-DB - 62399/2018 - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri G.M. Sharma, A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against the appellant on account of recovery of 8% value of exempted goods shown as duty recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales documents as duty or not. In fact, the invoices referred to the payment in different terms such as 8% reversal of assessable value , 8% value , 8% duty etc. As the amounts recovered from the buyers are not retained by the assessees, the question of deposit cannot arise, whether under Section 11D or any other provision. A reading of Section 11D makes it clear that what is required 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 assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that Section 11D provides for double taxation. It was contended that subsection (1) of Section 11D makes the manufacture liable to pay duty which he collects from the buyer as part of the price of goods even where the manufacturer has already paid the duty at the time of removal. We do not think that there is any foundation for the said understanding or apprehension. There are no words in the section which provide for payment of duty twice over. All that the section says is this: the amount collected by a person/manufacturer from the buyer of goods as representing duty of excise shall be paid over to the State; even if the tax collected by the manufacturer from his purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay duty........and has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods in any manner representing as duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit to the Central Government has application only when equivalent duty had not been deposited at the time of removal of the goods. The scheme of the law is that manufacturers shall not collect amounts falsely representing them as central excise duty and retain them, thus, unjustly, benefiting themselves. In the present cases, (irrespective of whether the 8% payments were duty or not) since the 8% amount remain already paid to the revenue, and no amount is retained by the assessee, Section 11D has no application. Thereafter, the CBEC issued a Circular No. 870/8/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
