https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242943 Pre-deposit was dispensed with because the demand was based on the allegation that amounts collected from buyers under Rule 6(3)(i) were liable to duty under Section 11D, despite the appellants having already paid the prescribed amount on exempted clearances using common Cenvat credit inputs. The Tribunal noted that a Larger Bench ruling had already held that amounts paid under Rule 6 and collected from buyers do not attract Section 11D where the sums have been deposited with the Revenue. On that binding legal position, the appellants established a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the appeals were listed for final hearing. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242943 Pre-deposit was dispensed with because the demand was based on the allegation that amounts collected from buyers under Rule 6(3)(i) were liable to duty under Section 11D, despite the appellants having already paid the prescribed amount on exempted clearances using common Cenvat credit inputs. The Tribunal noted that a Larger Bench ruling had already held that amounts paid under Rule 6 and collected from buyers do not attract Section 11D where the sums have been deposited with the Revenue. On that binding legal position, the appellants established a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the appeals were listed for final hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242943