Substantial question of law not shown where factual findings defeated Section 11D demand and Rule 6 arguments failed

Section 11D required a factual basis that the assessee had collected an amount as excise duty and was liable to pay it to the Central Government; the Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's factual case, and the HC held that those findings could not be reappreciated in an appeal confined to substantial questions of law. The challenge based on the circular also failed because there was no indication that the point had been urged before the Tribunal. The Rule 6 plea likewise did not create a legal basis to disturb the Tribunal's order merely because separate accounts were not maintained. No substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed questions arising from the Tribunal's order disclosed any substantial question of law, including the applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the effect of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The demand under Section 11D depended on a factual foundation that the assessee had collected an amount representing excise duty and was liable to remit it to the Central Government. The Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's factual stand, and the High Court held that it could not reappreciate those findings in an appeal confined to substantial questions of law. The challenge based on the circular also failed because there was nothing to show that the point had been pressed before the Tribunal. The plea under Rule 6 likewise did not establish any legal obligation to decide in favour of the Revenue merely because separate accounts were not maintained.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---