TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the set-off available under Notification No. 432/86-CE constituted duty paid and whether the amount shown and recovered from customers could be treated as duty recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of a rigid time limit under Section 11D and whether the recovered amount was includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether the set-off available under Notification No. 432/86-CE constituted duty paid and whether the amount shown and recovered from customers could be treated as duty recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The notification was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as an exemption scheme linked to duty paid on inputs. The set-off did not represent duty assessed and paid on the finished goods, and the records maintained only enabled correlation of the exemption admissible. Since the amount was shown on gate passes and recovered from customers as if it were excise duty, it was not recoverable as a permissible duty payment by the appellant.
Conclusion: The amount recovered as set-off was correctly held recoverable under Section 11D, and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of a rigid time limit under Section 11D and whether the recovered amount was includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Section 11D does not prescribe a strict period of limitation, and recovery proceedings are sustainable if initiated within a reasonable time. On the facts, the notice was issued within a reasonable period. The excess amount recovered from customers represented an additional consideration and was liable to be included in the assessable value under Section 4.
Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred and the amount was includible in the assessable value, so this issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the duty-recovery and limitation questions, and the confirmation of demand was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A set-off available under an exemption notification is not duty assessed and paid unless the scheme itself creates such a duty payment mechanism, and amounts recovered from customers as excise duty may be recovered under Section 11D and included in assessable value if they are not actually payable as duty; proceedings under Section 11D are sustainable if initiated within a reasonable time.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
