Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether amounts shown on clearance documents as excise duty, duty, or amount under Rule 57CC, and collected in connection with exempted clearances, were liable to be deposited under Section 11D; and whether the demand required reworking on a document-wise examination.
Analysis: The appeal concerned common inputs used for dutiable and fully exempt final products, with reversal of 8% under Rule 57CC. The decisive distinction was between amounts expressly depicted and collected as excise duty and amounts merely described as payable under Rule 57CC. Only the former were held to attract Section 11D, because collection as excise duty brings the amount within the statutory requirement to deposit it. Amounts shown only as a Rule 57CC figure were held not to fall within Section 11D. Since each clearance document had to be rechecked to ascertain the exact nature of the collection and the amounts recoverable, the matter required reworking by the original authority.
Conclusion: Amounts collected and shown as excise duty were held liable under Section 11D, while amounts shown only as Rule 57CC payments were held not to be covered by Section 11D. The matter was remanded for re-computation of the amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11D applies only to amounts collected as excise duty, and not to amounts merely reflected as payable under Rule 57CC without such collection as duty.