https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115489 Amounts shown in invoices as an 8% excise duty component were treated as duty collected from customers, and a rubber stamp referring to reversal under Rule 57AD did not, on the material before the Tribunal, override the invoice entries. Entitlement to input credit was treated as a separate question and did not affect the issue whether duty had been charged at removal. As no excise duty was payable on the final products, the collection of an amount shown as duty attracted section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Pendency of a similar issue before a Larger Bench was held not to justify interim protection, and the stay application was rejected. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2012 10:54:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115489 Amounts shown in invoices as an 8% excise duty component were treated as duty collected from customers, and a rubber stamp referring to reversal under Rule 57AD did not, on the material before the Tribunal, override the invoice entries. Entitlement to input credit was treated as a separate question and did not affect the issue whether duty had been charged at removal. As no excise duty was payable on the final products, the collection of an amount shown as duty attracted section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Pendency of a similar issue before a Larger Bench was held not to justify interim protection, and the stay application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115489