TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked to recover amounts alleged to have been collected from buyers where the goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty and without prior assessment or determination of duty. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked to recover amounts alleged to have been collected from buyers where the goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty and without prior assessment or determination of duty.
Analysis: Section 11D applies only where duty has been assessed or determined in accordance with the Act or the Rules and, as a result of such assessment or determination, excess duty collected from buyers is found. In the present matter, the allegations were of clandestine manufacture and removal without payment of duty. There was no assessment or determination of duty in relation to the clearances in question, and mere issuance of invoices did not amount to assessment. Since no duty had been paid to the department at all, the case did not fit within the statutory precondition for invoking Section 11D.
Conclusion: Section 11D was inapplicable, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The show cause notice related to clearances during April to June 1996 but was served only on 3-2-2004. Even by the extended period, recovery under Section 11A had become time-barred. The attempt to shift the claim to Section 11D could not cure the limitation defect because that provision was itself inapplicable to the facts.
Conclusion: The demand under Section 11A was time-barred.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order setting aside the duty and penalty was sustained, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11D cannot be used to recover alleged buyer collections unless duty has first been assessed or determined under the excise law, and it cannot be invoked as a substitute for a time-barred demand under Section 11A.
TaxTMI 
