Identical excise facts defeat differential duty demand where no real legal distinction existed between the two units.

A differential excise duty demand based on deposit collections was found unsustainable where the Madurai unit's facts were materially identical to those of the earlier Madras unit, whose proceedings had been dropped after remand. The absence of intimation to the Assistant Collector about the 8% discount value and duty collection did not create a legal distinction because the substantive position remained unchanged. On that basis, the demand was not maintainable, and the wider question on the applicability of Section 11A was left unexplored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for the differential amount collected as deposit towards excise duty could be sustained when the assessee's Madurai unit was on identical facts with the earlier Madras unit, and whether the impugned order calling upon payment of the collected amount was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The facts relating to the two units were found to be materially identical. The earlier proceeding concerning the Madras unit had already been examined and, after remand, the proceedings were dropped. The absence of intimation to the Assistant Collector at Virudhunagar regarding the 8% discount value and the duty collected thereon was held not to create any real distinction in law, since the substantive position remained the same. In these circumstances, the Court found no valid basis for sustaining the demand, and it was unnecessary to go into the wider argument on the applicability of Section 11A.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---