In Bata India Limited reported in 2007 -TMI - 1611 - CESTAT,KOLKATA an interesting issued came before the honorable tribunal (CESTAT) that where price has been indicated as "Cum-Duty-Price" and cleared as exempted goods, whether the provisions of Section 11D are applicable where the assessee is required to deposit the amount if collected in the name of Central Excise Duty.

In the instant case, CESTAT has held that mere filing such price-list alone is not enough to attract the provision of Section l1D. We have seen some of the invoices which merely record the value of the goods and discount and a sales tax on the discounted value. No amount is collected through these invoices representing excise duty on these exempted goods. Therefore, the provision of Section l1D is not applicable to the facts of this case.

Cum-duty-price notation does not alone establish excise collection; actual identifiable duty receipt is required to impose deposit obligations. Notation of 'cum-duty-price' on invoices or price-lists for exempted goods does not, by itself, trigger a deposit obligation for excise; the decisive factor is whether an identifiable amount was actually collected from the purchaser as excise. Documents that only state a gross price, discounts, and sales tax on discounted value, without any separate excise component collected, do not establish collection of duty and therefore do not meet the factual threshold for treating receipts as collected excise.