https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51244 Section 11D was treated as confined to excess amounts collected as excise duty on the final excisable goods by a person liable to pay that duty, and not to sums separately recovered as Additional Excise Duty already paid on inputs. Because the finished goods were exempt from Additional Excise Duty and only Basic Excise Duty applied to the finished product, the demand under Section 11D could not be sustained, and the connected demands for interest and penalty under the Act and Rules also failed. The note further states that, in the setting of the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957, the borrowed Central Excise Act provisions did not extend the Section 11D appropriation mechanism to this recovery of input duty. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51244 Section 11D was treated as confined to excess amounts collected as excise duty on the final excisable goods by a person liable to pay that duty, and not to sums separately recovered as Additional Excise Duty already paid on inputs. Because the finished goods were exempt from Additional Excise Duty and only Basic Excise Duty applied to the finished product, the demand under Section 11D could not be sustained, and the connected demands for interest and penalty under the Act and Rules also failed. The note further states that, in the setting of the Additional Excise Duty Act, 1957, the borrowed Central Excise Act provisions did not extend the Section 11D appropriation mechanism to this recovery of input duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51244