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 amount collected from buyers as central excise duty on clearances of metalized polyester film and laminated films was recoverable under section 11D; (ii) whether Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in exported metalized polyester film was reversible; (iii) whether duty demand on polyethylene film captively consumed for lamination was sustainable; and (iv) whether Cenvat credit demands relating to alleged clandestine removal were sustainable, along with the consequential penalties.
Issue (i): whether the amount collected from buyers as central excise duty on clearances of metalized polyester film and laminated films was recoverable under section 11D.
Analysis: Section 11D applies where a person liable to pay duty collects an amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid. The findings in the order showed that the appellant had already paid central excise duty from the amounts recovered from customers. In such circumstances, the collected amount could not again be demanded under section 11D. Since the statutory precondition for section 11D was absent, interest also could not survive.
Conclusion: The demand under section 11D was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in exported metalized polyester film was reversible.
Analysis: The export was treated as export under bond, and the circulars relied upon clarified that inputs used for export clearances could be exported without reversal of credit. Where the goods were exported and the applicable procedure permitted export without duty, there was no legal basis to compel reversal of credit on the inputs.
Conclusion: The demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on the exported goods was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether duty demand on polyethylene film captively consumed for lamination was sustainable.
Analysis: The intermediate product was captively consumed in the course of manufacture, but the final product had already been cleared on payment of duty. That payment was treated as discharging the duty burden relatable to the captively consumed product, so a separate demand on the intermediate product was unwarranted.
Conclusion: The demand on the captively consumed polyethylene film was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): whether Cenvat credit demands relating to alleged clandestine removal were sustainable, along with the consequential penalties.
Analysis: The demand relating to clandestine removal proceeded on the footing that credit had been availed on clandestinely procured inputs and removed finished goods. The reasoning recorded showed that where inputs were procured clandestinely, credit on such inputs could not be said to have been availed in the first place. Once the substantive demands failed, the penalties based on those demands also could not survive.
Conclusion: The demands relating to alleged clandestine removal and the connected penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11D cannot be invoked where the assessee has already paid duty from the amount recovered, export clearances made under the applicable bond procedure do not require reversal of permissible credit, and penalty cannot survive once the substantive duty or credit demand fails.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
