https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30286 Where excise invoices separately showed duty collected on an ad valorem basis, that entry created a presumption that the amount was recovered from buyers; absent documentary evidence to rebut it, the amount was recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The fact that the sale price remained unchanged was insufficient to displace that presumption. The Tribunal also held that recovery under Section 11D was not subject to the limitation scheme in Section 11A, because Section 11D itself did not prescribe a limitation period, and the retrospective amendment enabling recovery was operative from 20 September 1991. The demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30286 Where excise invoices separately showed duty collected on an ad valorem basis, that entry created a presumption that the amount was recovered from buyers; absent documentary evidence to rebut it, the amount was recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The fact that the sale price remained unchanged was insufficient to displace that presumption. The Tribunal also held that recovery under Section 11D was not subject to the limitation scheme in Section 11A, because Section 11D itself did not prescribe a limitation period, and the retrospective amendment enabling recovery was operative from 20 September 1991. The demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30286