2003 (9) TMI 619 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT distinguishes Excise duty vs. Rule 57CC amounts for deposit under Section 11D.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled that amounts depicted as Excise duty must be deposited under Section 11D, while amounts shown only as per Rule ... Modvat credit on inputs common to dutiable and exempt final products - reversal of input credit on clearance of exempted goods under Rule 57CC - liability to deposit amounts depicted and collected as excise duty under Section 11D - treatment of amounts shown only as Rule 57CC entries - remand for reworking clearance documents and recomputation by original authorityLiability to deposit amounts depicted and collected as excise duty under Section 11D - treatment of amounts shown only as Rule 57CC entries - Whether amounts reversed under Rule 57CC and shown on invoices are liable to be deposited under Section 11D and whether amounts shown only as Rule 57CC entries fall within Section 11D liability. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that where amounts on clearance documents are actually depicted as 'Excise duty' and have been collected, those amounts fall within the scope of deposit liability under Section 11D and must be deposited by the manufacturer. By contrast, amounts that are shown merely as an 'amount under Rule 57CC' on the documents, and not depicted or collected as excise duty, are not covered by Section 11D. The original authority must therefore examine each clearance document to identify which entries represent amounts depicted and collected as excise duty and which are recorded only as Rule 57CC reversals, and compute liability accordingly. The authority should also consider whether a marking indicating no provision for collection under Section 11D is integral to the date of removal on the documents when making that determination.Amounts depicted and collected as excise duty on invoices are depositable under Section 11D; amounts shown only as Rule 57CC entries are not covered by Section 11D.Remand for reworking clearance documents and recomputation by original authority - Whether the matter should be remanded for verification and recomputation of amounts by the original authority. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal directed that each clearance document be rechecked and the amounts worked out afresh by the original authority in light of the legal distinction drawn between amounts depicted/collected as excise duty and amounts shown only as Rule 57CC entries. The remand includes consideration of the alternate marking indicating absence of collection under Section 11D as integral to the date of removal on the documents. The Tribunal thereby did not finalize computation itself but entrusted the original authority to recompute deposits consistent with the legal findings.Matter remanded to the original authority to rework the amounts on clearance documents and recompute deposit liability consistent with the Tribunal's findings.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed in part; the Tribunal held that only amounts actually depicted and collected as excise duty on invoices attract deposit under Section 11D while amounts shown merely as Rule 57CC reversals do not, and remitted the matter to the original authority to re-examine clearance documents and recompute the amounts accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled that amounts depicted as Excise duty must be deposited under Section 11D, while amounts shown only as per Rule 57CC are not covered by this provision. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the original authority for reworking the amounts on clearance documents.