Section 11D demand requires proof of duty collection; a price reference alone does not establish recovery from buyers.

An amount reversed by payment of 8% under Rule 57CC could not be demanded under Section 11D unless it was actually collected from buyers as excise duty. The record showed that the assessee had reversed the credit and produced evidence that the amount was not recovered from customers. A purchase order referring to a price inclusive of central excise duty did not prove collection as duty. In the absence of proof that any amount was collected representing excise duty, the statutory condition for Section 11D was not met, and the demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount reversed at 8% under Rule 57CC and allegedly included in the sale price could be demanded under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as an amount collected representing excise duty.

Analysis: The records showed that the assessee had reversed the credit by paying 8% of the value of extra neutral alcohol and had produced evidence to show that this amount was not recovered from customers. The purchase order relied upon only indicated that the price included 8% as central excise duty, but it did not establish that the assessee had actually collected any amount from buyers as excise duty. In the absence of proof of collection as excise duty, the statutory requirement for invoking Section 11D was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand under Section 11D was not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded.

---