Section 11D liability: invoice entries showing duty collection supported recovery, and pending Larger Bench reference did not justify stay.

Amounts shown in invoices as an 8% excise duty component were treated as duty collected from customers, and a rubber stamp referring to reversal under Rule 57AD did not, on the material before the Tribunal, override the invoice entries. Entitlement to input credit was treated as a separate question and did not affect the issue whether duty had been charged at removal. As no excise duty was payable on the final products, the collection of an amount shown as duty attracted section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Pendency of a similar issue before a Larger Bench was held not to justify interim protection, and the stay application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant made out a prima facie case for stay of recovery under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the amount shown in the invoices was not collected as excise duty and that the matter was pending before a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The invoices reflected an 8% excise duty component, and the amount was worked out and shown as duty payable in the invoices. The presence of a rubber stamp indicating reversal under Rule 57AD did not, on the material before the Tribunal, displace the invoice entries showing collection of duty from customers. The entitlement to credit on inputs was treated as a different issue and did not affect whether duty had been charged at removal. Since no excise duty was payable on the final products, the collection of an amount shown as duty attracted section 11D. The pendency of a similar question before a Larger Bench was held not to justify stay in the present matter.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, and the stay application was rejected.

---