TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by Commissioner of Central Excise dated 25-10-2001. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether a demand can be raised under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a dealer. In other words, so long as the appellant is not a manufacturer can a demand under Section 11D be maintainable against it. 2. The show cause notice was received by the appellant which proposed the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations are extended arm of the said installations and the sale is based on the administered prices, which are approved by Ministry of Petroleum. They are also registered dealer, duly registered with the Central Excise Department under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, and therefore demand under Section 11D would be maintainable. According to the learned Commissioner the phrase 'every person' a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Central Excise Act or the rules made thereunder. The liability to pay a duty is on the manufacturer and not to the dealer. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had given an interpretation to the term 'every person' under sub-section (1) of Section 11D before the amendment referred above as the manufacturer/ producer. Under these circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 with retrospective effect from 20-9-91. In the present case, we are concerned with the demand for a period from July, 1997 to August, 2000. Under these circumstances, the appellant's contentions are only to be accepted. No demand can be raised against appellant under Section 11D as it is not the manufacturer of the concerned goods. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
