https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124218 A fixed-price supply contract was treated as involving a cum-duty price, but recovery under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was not attracted because the record did not show that the assessee collected any amount from the buyer in excess of the duty actually assessed and paid. A contractual reference to prevailing excise duty rates was insufficient to prove collection of additional duty. In the absence of evidence in the invoices or assessment records showing over-recovery, the statutory condition for Section 11D recovery was not met. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124218 A fixed-price supply contract was treated as involving a cum-duty price, but recovery under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was not attracted because the record did not show that the assessee collected any amount from the buyer in excess of the duty actually assessed and paid. A contractual reference to prevailing excise duty rates was insufficient to prove collection of additional duty. In the absence of evidence in the invoices or assessment records showing over-recovery, the statutory condition for Section 11D recovery was not met. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124218