Section 11D demand requires proof of actual excess collection from buyers; invoices alone are not conclusive evidence.

Section 11D of the Central Excise Act applies only where an assessee has actually collected from buyers an amount in excess of the duty assessed or paid. RT-12 returns showing duty paid at the concessional rate, together with an unrebutted Chartered Accountant's certificate, were treated as sufficient to show that no excess duty had been collected. Invoices reflecting the normal rate of duty were not treated as conclusive proof of collection from buyers. On that basis, the provision could not be invoked and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was sustainable on the footing that the assessee had collected from buyers an amount in excess of the duty assessed and paid during the period in dispute.

Analysis: The assessee had filed RT-12 returns showing duty at the concessional rate as the duty paid, and those returns were acknowledged by the department. The Revenue relied on invoices showing the normal rate of duty as the amount payable, but those invoices were not treated as conclusive proof of actual collection from buyers. The assessee produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating that no excess duty had been collected, and this evidence, read with the self-assessment particulars in the RT-12 returns, was not rebutted by the department. Section 11D speaks of amount collected in excess of the duty assessed or determined, and in the absence of proof of such collection from buyers, the provision could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Section 11D was not invocable and the demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand under Section 11D can be sustained only on proof that the assessee actually collected from buyers an amount in excess of the duty assessed and paid; invoices by themselves are not conclusive where self-assessment records and unrebutted evidence show no such excess collection.

---