Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in duty dispute, setting aside Section 11D duty confirmed.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, decided the appeal in favor of the appellant, represented by Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, after dispensing with the pre-deposit condition. The duty confirmed under Section 11D was set aside as the recovery of 8% of value of exempted goods, debited in RG-23 Part II, was considered as payment to the Revenue based on the Tribunal's precedent. The Commissioner (Appeals) distinction regarding duty collection in invoices was deemed irrelevant, leading to the allowance of both appeals.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 11D regarding recovery of 8% of value of exempted goods from customers and its payment to Revenue.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in the case represented by Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri D.S. Negi, SDR for the Respondent, decided the appeal after dispensing with the pre-deposit condition. The duty was confirmed against the appellant u/s Section 11D for not paying the recovered 8% of value of exempted goods to the Revenue, despite debiting the amount in modvat account at the time of clearance. The appellant relied on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. to argue that the reversal of 8% amount from the Cenvat credit account constituted payment to the Revenue, thus the demand under Section 11D should not be confirmed again. The Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished the Unison Metals case, stating that the appellant had collected the 8% amount as duty in invoices without bearing the debit entry of Part II. However, the Tribunal found this distinction unnecessary as the factual position of duty showing in invoices did not affect the legal issue. The core issue was whether the 8% value recovered and debited in RG-23 Part II required further duty confirmation under Section 11D, which was decided in favor of the appellant by the Larger Bench. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed.

---