<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (10) TMI 730 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217792</link>
    <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act is attracted only where the person is liable to pay excise duty and collects an amount in excess as excise duty from buyers. It was held prima facie inapplicable to dealer transactions involving duty-paid petroleum products, because the appellant was not itself liable to pay duty on those clearances. The same approach applied to sales of duty-paid goods received from refineries. However, for non-duty-paid clearances where the appellant was required to discharge duty, the record showed collection at the full normal rate while duty was paid only at a reduced rate, so Section 11D was prima facie attracted to that extent and partial pre-deposit was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 730 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217792</link>
      <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act is attracted only where the person is liable to pay excise duty and collects an amount in excess as excise duty from buyers. It was held prima facie inapplicable to dealer transactions involving duty-paid petroleum products, because the appellant was not itself liable to pay duty on those clearances. The same approach applied to sales of duty-paid goods received from refineries. However, for non-duty-paid clearances where the appellant was required to discharge duty, the record showed collection at the full normal rate while duty was paid only at a reduced rate, so Section 11D was prima facie attracted to that extent and partial pre-deposit was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>