<?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>2016 (2) TMI 1046 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190795</link>
    <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where an assessee collects from a buyer an amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined as excise duty. Here, the invoice trail showed that duty at refinery clearance and duty reflected in depot sales invoices corresponded, and the revised higher sale price did not by itself prove collection of any excess amount as duty. In the absence of credible evidence that any additional sum was recovered representing excise duty, a demand based on presumption could not stand. Section 11D was therefore not invocable on these facts, and the excise demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1046 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190795</link>
      <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where an assessee collects from a buyer an amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined as excise duty. Here, the invoice trail showed that duty at refinery clearance and duty reflected in depot sales invoices corresponded, and the revised higher sale price did not by itself prove collection of any excess amount as duty. In the absence of credible evidence that any additional sum was recovered representing excise duty, a demand based on presumption could not stand. Section 11D was therefore not invocable on these facts, and the excise demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>