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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be sustained when the amount shown in the books as outstanding from the buyer had not actually been realised from the buyer.
Analysis: Section 11D fastens liability only where an assessee has collected an amount from the buyer in excess of the duty assessed or determined and has retained it instead of paying it to the Government. The material on record indicated that the disputed amount was reflected as outstanding in the assessee's books, but it had not been received from the buyer. In that situation, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 11D was not established on the existing record. As the factual question whether the amount was actually collected remained decisive, the matter required a fresh determination by the Original Authority after giving the assessee an opportunity to adduce material.
Conclusion: The demand under Section 11D was not sustainable on the present findings, and the issue was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the core legal issue, but the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the factual question of actual collection of the disputed amount.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arises only when an assessee has actually collected the amount from the buyer as excise duty and has not paid it to the Government.