1999 (11) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period. These biris were made from duty-paid unbranded hand-made biris. The branded hand-made biris manufactured by the respondents were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 111/83-C.E., dated 1-3-83 as amended. On the basis of intelligence received by the Department to the effect that the respondents were collecting an amount representing Central Excise Duty from the buyer through Invoices/Bills raised by them, Officers of the Central Excise conducted enquiries by way of verification of invoices and other records and recording of statement of a working partner of the respondent-firm under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and reached the conclusion that the respondents had collected Central Excise Duty to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as desired by the buyers. 3. In adjudication of the above dispute, the Commissioner of Central Excise accepted the aforesaid explanation offered by the party and accordingly reached the finding that no amount was collected as Central Excise duty by the respondents on the branded hand-made biris at the time of sale to the buyers. Accordingly, the Commissioner dropped the show-cause notice proceedings against the party. While doing so, however, the Commissioner did not advert to the issue as to whether the provisions of Section 11D were applicable to the case or not vis-a-vis the plea of the party in that behalf. The Revenue is aggrieved, in the present appeal, by the above order of the adjudicating authority dropping proceedings agai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 531 (T) and SAIL v. CCE 1999 (34) RLT 542 (CEGAT). We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the aforesaid case of Eternit Everest Ltd. and we observe that the Hon'ble High Court held that proceedings in the nature of demand by show-cause notice under Section 11D was not invocable since such demand was not enforceable for want or machinery provision for assessment or adjudication of a claim of the nature visualised under the said Section 11D. We further observe that this ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has been followed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decisions in the cases of Amal Rasayan Ltd. & SAIL. In the present case too we observe, the ratio o....