Rule 6 payments and Section 11D: pre-deposit waived after a binding ruling confirmed no further duty liability.

Pre-deposit was dispensed with because the demand was based on the allegation that amounts collected from buyers under Rule 6(3)(i) were liable to duty under Section 11D, despite the appellants having already paid the prescribed amount on exempted clearances using common Cenvat credit inputs. The Tribunal noted that a Larger Bench ruling had already held that amounts paid under Rule 6 and collected from buyers do not attract Section 11D where the sums have been deposited with the Revenue. On that binding legal position, the appellants established a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the appeals were listed for final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition of pre-deposit should be dispensed with where the demand was sought to be sustained on the footing that the amount collected from buyers under Rule 6(3)(i) was liable to duty under Section 11D.

Analysis: The appellants were clearing exempted final products after availing Cenvat credit on common inputs and had paid the prescribed amount under Rule 6(3)(i). The demand was founded on the allegation that this amount had been collected from buyers. The Tribunal noted that the issue stood covered by the Larger Bench ruling holding that the amount paid under Rule 6 and collected from buyers would not attract Section 11D because the amount had already been deposited with the Revenue. As the Commissioner had ignored that binding declaration of law, the appellants disclosed a strong prima facie case for interim relief.

Conclusion: The condition of pre-deposit was dispensed with and the appeals were fixed for final hearing.

---