https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54079 Recovery under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained because the amount collected as an additional surcharge had already suffered duty and the depot was duty-paid; such recovery was not a levy of duty under Section 3. On that basis, proceedings under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A also failed. As the underlying demand was unsustainable, the proposed penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB were treated as consequential and likewise could not survive, and the demand with all related proceedings was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:15:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54079 Recovery under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained because the amount collected as an additional surcharge had already suffered duty and the depot was duty-paid; such recovery was not a levy of duty under Section 3. On that basis, proceedings under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A also failed. As the underlying demand was unsustainable, the proposed penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB were treated as consequential and likewise could not survive, and the demand with all related proceedings was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54079