Section 11D applies only to excess duty collected on final goods, not separately recovered input duty.

Section 11D was treated as confined to excess amounts collected as excise duty on the final excisable goods by a person liable to pay that duty, and not to sums separately recovered as Additional Excise Duty already paid on inputs. Because the finished goods were exempt from Additional Excise Duty and only Basic Excise Duty applied to the finished product, the demand under Section 11D could not be sustained, and the connected demands for interest and penalty under the Act and Rules also failed. The note further states that, in the setting of the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957, the borrowed Central Excise Act provisions did not extend the Section 11D appropriation mechanism to this recovery of input duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty collected separately from buyers as Additional Excise Duty on inputs, and not as duty on the finished excisable goods, was recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalties under the Act and the Rules; (ii) Whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to Additional Excise Duty in the light of Section 3(3) of the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether duty collected separately from buyers as Additional Excise Duty on inputs, and not as duty on the finished excisable goods, was recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalties under the Act and the Rules.

Analysis: The demand was founded on amounts shown separately in invoices as Additional Excise Duty, but the record showed that the amount recovered represented duty already paid on the base fabrics used as inputs. The finished product was exempt from Additional Excise Duty under Notification No. 11/98-C.E., and only Basic Excise Duty was payable on the finished goods. Section 11D, as substituted, was read as applying to a person liable to pay duty who collects an amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined on excisable goods representing excise duty. On that construction, the provision was confined to excess collection relatable to the duty on the final excisable product, not to recovery of duty paid on inputs separately recovered from the buyer. For the same reason, the demand could not be sustained under Section 11A(1), nor could interest under Section 11AB or penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q be imposed.

Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable under Section 11D or the connected provisions, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to Additional Excise Duty in the light of Section 3(3) of the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957.

Analysis: The provision in the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957 borrowed the Central Excise Act only for levy, collection, offences and penalties. In view of that limited incorporation, and following the reasoning approved from the earlier decision relied upon, the appropriation mechanism under Section 11D was held inapplicable to Additional Excise Duty in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: Section 11D was held inapplicable to the Additional Excise Duty recovery in issue, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming recovery, interest and penalties was set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 11D applies only to excess amounts collected as representing duty on excisable final goods by a person liable to pay such duty, and it does not extend to separately recovered duty paid on inputs where the finished product itself is exempt from that duty.

---