Appeal dismissed due to insufficient evidence of duty collection under Section 11D.

The Revenue's appeal against the dropping of a demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence of duty collection as required by law, as no invoices indicated excise duty separately and no concrete proof of duty collection existed. The decision underscores the necessity of providing clear evidence of duty collection to support demands under Section 11D, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and invoicing practices.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dropping of demand u/s 11D of Central Excise Act by Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad.

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, who dropped the demand for Rs. 21,74,963/- made under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act as unsubstantiated, specifically related to the Proprietor, Contractor & Engineer who owned three firms.

Facts: The respondents are manufacturers of RCC and PSC pipes supplied for lift irrigation scheme under works contract, clearing goods at 'Nil' or concessional rate of duty applicable to SSI units. Allegation was that while paying 'Nil' or concessional duty, they collected full duty from recipients but did not deposit the excess collection representing duty as required u/s 11D.

Grounds for Dropping Demand: Collector dropped the demand stating: (a) No bill raised showing excise duty separately; (b) No evidence of full duty collected; (c) Section 11D requires only duty collected to be deposited, which was not supported by bills raised by respondents.

Revenue's Contention: Revenue argued that respondents considered full duty in cost estimation even when paying nil or concessional duty; Commissioner erred in dismissing demand; Rate Analysis Statement and payment details supported duty collection; Demand u/s 11D was justified.

Decision: Tribunal noted that no invoices indicated excise duty separately, and while the contract price included duty, no evidence of duty collection existed. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal held that demand under Section 11D cannot be upheld. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected based on lack of evidence supporting duty collection as required by law.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence of duty collection to support demands made under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the need for clear documentation and invoicing practices to substantiate claims.

---