https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2825 An amount reversed by payment of 8% under Rule 57CC could not be demanded under Section 11D unless it was actually collected from buyers as excise duty. The record showed that the assessee had reversed the credit and produced evidence that the amount was not recovered from customers. A purchase order referring to a price inclusive of central excise duty did not prove collection as duty. In the absence of proof that any amount was collected representing excise duty, the statutory condition for Section 11D was not met, and the demand failed. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2825 An amount reversed by payment of 8% under Rule 57CC could not be demanded under Section 11D unless it was actually collected from buyers as excise duty. The record showed that the assessee had reversed the credit and produced evidence that the amount was not recovered from customers. A purchase order referring to a price inclusive of central excise duty did not prove collection as duty. In the absence of proof that any amount was collected representing excise duty, the statutory condition for Section 11D was not met, and the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2825