Excise invoice duty collection presumption upheld; recovery under Section 11D not time-barred under Section 11A mechanism.

Where excise invoices separately showed duty collected on an ad valorem basis, that entry created a presumption that the amount was recovered from buyers; absent documentary evidence to rebut it, the amount was recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The fact that the sale price remained unchanged was insufficient to displace that presumption. The Tribunal also held that recovery under Section 11D was not subject to the limitation scheme in Section 11A, because Section 11D itself did not prescribe a limitation period, and the retrospective amendment enabling recovery was operative from 20 September 1991. The demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount shown as excise duty in the assessee's invoices could be treated as duty collected from buyers and made recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. (ii) Whether recovery of such amount was barred by limitation or could be pursued by invoking the machinery of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Issue (i): Whether the amount shown as excise duty in the assessee's invoices could be treated as duty collected from buyers and made recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The invoices issued from the head office separately showed duty of excise having been collected on an ad valorem basis. In the absence of documentary evidence showing that the amount so reflected was not actually recovered from buyers, the statutory invoice gives rise to a presumption of collection. Mere reliance on the fact that the sale price remained unchanged did not rebut that presumption.

Conclusion: The amount shown in the invoices was rightly treated as duty collected from buyers and was recoverable under Section 11D. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery of such amount was barred by limitation or could be pursued by invoking the machinery of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The provisions of Section 11D were amended with retrospective effect to introduce a recovery mechanism from 20 September 1991, but the section itself did not prescribe a period of limitation. The machinery of Section 11A was held inapplicable to demands arising under Section 11D, and the absence of an express limitation meant that the recovery was not time-barred on that ground.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation and the Revenue could recover the amount under Section 11D without applying the limitation scheme of Section 11A. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an excise invoice itself shows duty as collected from the buyer, the assessee must rebut that presumption with evidence; and a retrospectively amended Section 11D permitting recovery of duty collected but not remitted is not controlled by the limitation mechanism of Section 11A.

---